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.

 PrayingSeraph wrote:
How does that scenario contradict or disprove my example?

It disproves your example because your scenario 2, your example of how a hate crime law would be applied, is one where hate crime laws wouldn't apply.

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.

The fact that it is possible to be wrongfully convicted of a crime does not mean that the crime should not exist.

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.

Or if the person who committed the crime openly (and often proudly) admits their motivation.

Actually that is not what Orwellian means. It does not have to be excessive to Orwellian.

Yes, it absolutely does. It is pretty much universally agreed that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, but calling that law "Orwellian" makes a joke of the concept. The whole point of Orwellian restrictions on freedom is that they're not reasonable, they're imposed because it's convenient or popular to get rid of something people find unpleasant.

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."

Perhaps you should read beyond the first sentence of the wikipedia article? The very next sentence is the following:

It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson"—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practised by modern repressive governments.

Not the key point: draconian control. Banning speech that directly attempts to convince someone to commit a violent crime is not "draconian" by any reasonable definition of the word.

Sure, but the criminal already locked up is not responsible for their actions.

And their action is deliberately attempting to cause other crimes. I don't know why you don't get the idea that when people commit a hate crime they're deliberately doing it as an example for other people to follow, and to intimidate other members of the target group with an implicit "you're next". Even if nobody happens to follow their wishes the attempt was still made.

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.

That would not be a hate crime because, while it is an incredibly offensive belief, it does not advocate any criminal actions. Why is it so hard to see the difference between "this group is bad" and "this group is bad and you should kill them"?

Should the author William Luther Pierce have been charged for the inspiration?

That depends on whether the "race war" in question is presented as a hypothetical "this is probably going to happen" kind of thing, or as a request for the author's followers to start killing people in a race war. There is a huge difference between "the races are not meant to mix, race war is inevitable when those s refuse to know their place" and "we need a race war, here are the targets you should kill to start it". Given the fact that The Turner Diaries is a fictional novel (and not, by the wikipedia plot summary, a very realistic one) I suspect the answer to this question is that it stays safely on the "horrible beliefs" side of the line without crossing into advocating violent crimes in the real world.

 PrayingSeraph wrote:
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.

Of course it is reasonable, because we as a society are capable and comfortable with making a judgement on the intent of the killer, on the operation of his mind. We've done this for centuries.

But now, suddenly, when we bring in a new judgement on the intent of the killer, that the attack was made with a racial intent... then suddenly everyone loses their mind and calls it 'Orwellian'.

However let us compare two scenarios of murder, one where there was no charge of a "hate crime" and another where there was.

As already pointed out by Peregrine, you don't understand the law. It isn't a hate crime if you kill a member of a racial group you are racist towards... the state has to establish that the crime itself was motivated by your racist beliefs.

In regards to your second response....you honestly just choose to make an utterly pointless complaint over me using the word Orwellian?

It isn't pointless, because throwing around dramatic words like that does nothing but kill the debate. That such a sloppy use of the term was so clearly against what Orwell actually wrote about made it ironic enough to demand a criticism.

The man who was all for a open and free society wouldn't be against freedom of speech and thought?

Please read some Orwell. Orwell writes for essay after essay, book after book, on clear and accurate use of language. Of course, most people have only ever read 1984, and so they think that's all he had to say about anything.

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.

No, you said it was a free speech issue. I understand that you already said there was a corpse mutilation crime there... but as to the content of what was carved in to the corpse, you think it was free speech and so, I presume it wouldn't matter whether what was carved was a message of race hate or a list of my little pony characters.

It was just one of those moments, like when you get a libertarian debating whether a person can sell themselves in to slavery or not... one of those moments where you see an ideology dropped in to a really contrived situation, but they still won't give up on their ideological argument, and it just shows how silly the underlying foundations are.

In terms to your last response, those "many people" who think there should be legal protection against fear are wrong.

Transgendered people are at least 10 times as likely to be murdered as other people. Should you do the good work of going to all their various forums and support groups that they are wrong to be afraid?

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?

Because these things don't happen in isolation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

Exactly. And Orwell was all about the correct and accurate use of language. In 1944, while the Allies were still fighting a fascist government in Europe, Orwell penned one of his most famous essays, about the overuse of the word 'fascist'.
"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else. (snip) Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

I believe Orwell would make a similar complaint about "Orwellian" today.

Also, PrayingSeraph, you're excessively focused on murder when hate crime laws apply to other things as well. For example, consider a case of assault instead:

If you're involved in a drunken fight at a bar over whose sports team sucks you might get some pain and injuries but you probably aren't going to be living in fear of the possibility that the person who attacked you is going to be coming back to kill you. The crime pretty much ends there.

If you're beat up because of your race (with your attacker making it clear that it's about your race) you have the same pain and injuries but now you know that someone out there hates you enough that they're willing to risk a long prison sentence to hurt you. If that person isn't caught and arrested you're probably going to be pretty worried that they might do it again, and might not stop at merely beating you up next time. And you know that nothing you do can change the situation. You can't just avoid a particular place or whatever and minimize the risk, you're a target no matter what you do or where you go. You aren't just physically injured, you've suffered some major psychological injuries as well. Injuries that only add to the existing pattern of less-severe racism you see around you every day. And not only do you suffer this, other people of your race who live/work/etc in the area of the crime have to wonder if they're the next target.

This is why hate crime laws add a harsher sentence for the second case, because the harm done to the victim(s) is much worse.

I thought the police were protected in law already. Not to the extent of people being arrested for shouting abuse at them, but assaulting a police officer is another level above assaulting a random member of the public.
Shouting abuse is covered by other laws, like "breaching the peace", and "inciting violence".
Maybe I'm just remembering British laws, and the US does not have equivalents.
All this Hate Crime stuff is just tacked onto existing laws, surely...?

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Which wasn't my argument or me making excuses. The reason for pointing this out was to:


A: He wasn't the "poor, innocent pillar of the community" his supporters/ the media made him out to be

B: Establish within the discussion that the police were performing their duties, and had probable cause for arrest. Garner was in the wrong here, not the police. It was not an "abuse of power", like some propose. And when your commit an arrestable offence in a given jurisdiction, walking away isn't an option. They system gave him plenty of chances to straighten up. But what does he do? Goes right back and does the same thing they was out on bail for. Thus, it's mostly a load of nonsense you are posting here (especially in your insistence that the police killed Garner, and that he should've been allowed to just walk away), and demonstrates your status as an "armchair quarterback". Idiotic, emotional arguments from a public that doesn't know jack about proper police procedures, ignorant of the facts/jumping to conclusions, and blindly follow the assertions of the sensationalist media and grievance industry, are part of the reason why good cops adopt the "bunker mentality" and become "thin blue liners". People will scream bloody murder when they do their jobs. People (many of the same ones) will scream bloody murder that "there is never a cop around when you need one". I, personally, know this all too well.


And once again, you demonstrate your blatant ignorance. Ask me how I know that you merely browsed my post, instead of actually reading it.


The fact that they were not "violent crimes" isn't relevant. Period. The police had probable cause to arrest. The were doing their jobs. The situation escalated because Garner physically resisted arrest by swatting the officer's hand away. A takedown and restraint was necessary. When he started resisting the police, it then became a safety issue, to the officers, Garner, and bystanders.

When they had him restrained, they executed the proper procedure to prevent asphyxiation by turning him on his side. But when you are trying to restrain them, when they are in the process of fighting you, you don't let up until restraints are properly applied. There have been cases where suspects tussling with the police complained that they couldn't breath, a limb was out of whack, etc. When the officers let up with no restraints, the suspects used the opportunity to gain an advantage in the struggle, or go for somebody's duty weapon. You restrain them before you let up. When they are in restraints, you still maintain a degree control of the suspect. To do otherwise because of "MUH FEELZ" or complacency is a good way to get seriously injured or killed.

The core fact of the matter is that Garner is the blame for his own demise here. He could have simply gone with the officers peacefully. Instead, he wanted to act like a typical criminal (i.e. "the laws don't apply to me"), act the fool, and resist the police executing a lawful arrest. The cops were doing their jobs properly. Garner didn't want to man up, and do things the right way, since he was busted again acting like a crook, violating the court's good faith. The courts and investigation of the incident determined the same thing. End. Of. Story.


However, in your case, trying to point this out to you is probably a waste of time. You can't counter combined uninformed and emotional arguments with facts or logic. So, after this point, I won't. I don't have the time or patience for circular arguments, or pissing off the mods by rehashing the same points over and over again, mucking up the thread. Peace, out.

TL: DR people deserve to die for not meekly immediately conforming to the demands of the police, and anything that might possibly have even the smallest chance of harming an officer (who voluntarily sought to enter the profession knowing the potential dangers) is grounds for exercising force far beyond scale of the violation involved until compliance or physical incapacitation up to and including death occurs, and none of it is in any way the fault of the police whatsoever, all responsibility lies with the suspect. All as a matter of course.

Police State Achievement Acquired.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
A: He wasn't the "poor, innocent pillar of the community" his supporters/ the media made him out to be

This has nothing to do with the use of force. It's just the classic "they were a Bad Person so they deserved it" argument that inevitably follows every controversy over police violence. Make the victim look like an awful person, undermine any sympathy they might have had, and turn it into a thinly veiled "that {racist term} got what they deserved".

B: Establish within the discussion that the police were performing their duties, and had probable cause for arrest.

The fact that probable cause for an arrest existed is not in dispute. The issue is how the arrest was conducted, specifically the use of excessive force ending in the death of the victim.

And when your commit an arrestable offence in a given jurisdiction, walking away isn't an option.

Oh really? When a warrant for an arrest is issued the police are required to immediately arrest the person as soon as possible, no matter what the cost? They have no discretion to say "this is a dangerous situation, we'll get them later"? After all, it's not like this was an arrest of a suspect in a violent crime where they need to be caught as soon as possible to protect any possible future victims. The worst possible outcome of waiting to arrest him would be that he continues to sell cigarettes without paying taxes (shock! horror!) for a while longer.

The situation escalated because Garner physically resisted arrest by swatting the officer's hand away. A takedown and restraint was necessary.

And this is exactly the problem. He swatted the cop's hand away, the cops immediately escalated to takedown and restraint. Swatting away the cop's hand didn't put any innocent people at risk. The only threat was to the ego of the cops. Their orders weren't immediately complied with, so they escalated their use of force to make their victim submit. An ordinary person escalating the use of force like that would be facing criminal charges and any claim of "self defense" would be laughed out of court, but somehow it's ok to do it if you have a badge.

When they had him restrained, they executed the proper procedure to prevent asphyxiation by turning him on his side. But when you are trying to restrain them, when they are in the process of fighting you, you don't let up until restraints are properly applied. There have been cases where suspects tussling with the police complained that they couldn't breath, a limb was out of whack, etc. When the officers let up with no restraints, the suspects used the opportunity to gain an advantage in the struggle, or go for somebody's duty weapon. You restrain them before you let up. When they are in restraints, you still maintain a degree control of the suspect. To do otherwise because of "MUH FEELZ" or complacency is a good way to get seriously injured or killed.

And you know what? Too ing bad. If you're a cop you accept that you're doing a dangerous job. You don't get to disregard the safety of the people you're arresting because it might give them an opportunity to threaten you. This is why we have a problem, the police have decided that protecting their own safety is the most important thing, even if it puts other people at risk.

 Peregrine wrote:

And you know what? Too ing bad. If you're a cop you accept that you're doing a dangerous job. You don't get to disregard the safety of the people you're arresting because it might give them an opportunity to threaten you. This is why we have a problem, the police have decided that protecting their own safety is the most important thing, even if it puts other people at risk.

Indeed, not only do they prioritize their own safety far above anything else for a job they knew was dangerous going in, but the level of force utilized at even the most minimal threat or likelyhood of a threat, as a matter of course, is far beyond what would be considered acceptable under the same circumstances from private citizen. The shoots that police get cleared on routinely would often land a private CHL holder in prison for murder for the exact same shoot.

 Peregrine wrote:


This has nothing to do with the use of force. It's just the classic "they were a Bad Person so they deserved it" argument that inevitably follows every controversy over police violence. Make the victim look like an awful person, undermine any sympathy they might have had, and turn it into a thinly veiled "that {racist term} got what they deserved".

It is relevant because of the rhetoric of "OHTEHNOZANOTHERINNOCENTAFRICANAMERICANKILLEDBYRAYCISTEBBILPO-LEECE!111!!eleventy!1one". It's because of that, people made a gigantic issue over it, despite the investigation and the courts finding no evidence of wrong-doing.

So don't even try that angle.

The fact that probable cause for an arrest existed is not in dispute. The issue is how the arrest was conducted, specifically the use of excessive force ending in the death of the victim.

Excessive force didn't happen in this case. Period. The video proved that. The video that was used in the investigation and by the courts. What part of that little fact escapes your mind?

Oh really? When a warrant for an arrest is issued the police are required to immediately arrest the person as soon as possible, no matter what the cost? They have no discretion to say "this is a dangerous situation, we'll get them later"? After all, it's not like this was an arrest of a suspect in a violent crime where they need to be caught as soon as possible to protect any possible future victims. The worst possible outcome of waiting to arrest him would be that he continues to sell cigarettes without paying taxes (shock! horror!) for a while longer.

Because it wasn't a dangerous situation until Garner started fighting when the officers started executed a lawful arrest. They had him, he violated the provisions of bail, the officers were justified in arresting him. What part of that little fact continues to elude your fething mind? Do you expect the police not to do their jobs because it might offend your sensitivities? Fun fact, bucko: This isn't Western Europe.

And this is exactly the problem. He swatted the cop's hand away, the cops immediately escalated to takedown and restraint. Swatting away the cop's hand didn't put any innocent people at risk. The only threat was to the ego of the cops. Their orders weren't immediately complied with, so they escalated their use of force to make their victim submit. An ordinary person escalating the use of force like that would be facing criminal charges and any claim of "self defense" would be laughed out of court, but somehow it's ok to do it if you have a badge.

It was RESISTING ARREST. PHYSICALLY RESISTING ARREST. They followed proper procedure and exercised proper restraint. Ego didn't have anything to do with it, except in your little fantasy world and anti-cop narrative. They were doing their goddamned job.

And no, in most jurisdictions (except for those that are run by those of your political leaning, where self-defense is frowned upon by "progressives") using unarmed means of self-defense to take down an assailant isn't a crime. Get your facts straight.

Unnecessary violence is if they took their collapsable batons and beat the ever-love gak out of him, choking him to death, or drawing their duty weapons and blowing his head off, None of which they did. They did a simple take down and applied restraints. What police DO ACROSS THE UNITED STATES EVERY DAMNED DAY, with little to no issue.

And you know what? Too ing bad. If you're a cop you accept that you're doing a dangerous job. You don't get to disregard the safety of the people you're arresting because it might give them an opportunity to threaten you. This is why we have a problem, the police have decided that protecting their own safety is the most important thing, even if it puts other people at risk.

Not just their safety, but the safe of the SUSPECT and BYSTANDERS, who could possible get hurt in a scuffle. They didn't disregard anybody's safety, Mr. Emotional

So, in your sick,twisted view it's okay for cops to get killed or injured on the basis that their job is "dangerous", without using techniques and procedures to ensure they also get to go home safe at end of shift? Just because some criminal, violating the law, MIGHT have an unseen health issue that might cause problems in a lawful, non-lethal takedown? Their lives are only worth the salary that the taxpayers pay them?


As a former cop, and having gone to funerals of brother officers killed in the line of duty, you can take your sheltered, know-nothing bull and stick where the sun don't shine. And I'm exercising RESTRAINT in picking my choice of words.


You should feel honored. You will be the first person, on any forum, to make it to my ignore list. Not because you disagree with me (which is fine, despite your ignorance). But because of that last point. You crossed the line. In the future, you should think before you speak or type.


You know nothing. Have a nice day, Skrillex. Give Carl my regards.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Indeed, not only do they prioritize their own safety far above anything else for a job they knew was dangerous going in, but the level of force utilized at even the most minimal threat or likelyhood of a threat, as a matter of course, is far beyond what would be considered acceptable under the same circumstances from private citizen. The shoots that police get cleared on routinely would often land a private CHL holder in prison for murder for the exact same shoot.

No they don't always prioritize their safety over all others. Officer safety is just as important as the safety of the suspect and bystanders. That's why quickly subduing the suspect is critical in an arrest situation.


And the reason that police can use measures beyond what is acceptable for private citizens is because they are the police, with the authority to detain and arrest, and the responsibility to go after criminals. Which means sometimes using force beyond what is allowable to the private citizen, who should only be concerned with self-defense, not going out of their way to get into a dangerous situation (which police do in order to catch criminals)

I thought you were done with this thread? Or was your dramatic exit just an attempt to get the last word and make a big show of how offended you are?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
It is relevant because of the rhetoric of "OHTEHNOZANOTHERINNOCENTAFRICANAMERICANKILLEDBYRAYCISTEBBILPO-LEECE!111!!eleventy!1one". It's because of that, people made a gigantic issue over it, despite the investigation and the courts finding no evidence of wrong-doing.

So don't even try that angle.

He was innocent. He did not commit any crime that justified death as a punishment. And the fact that the investigation cleared the cops doesn't mean a whole lot when a common criticism is that the system is biased in favor of the police and lets them get away with things that should be punished.

It was RESISTING ARREST. PHYSICALLY RESISTING ARREST.

It was technically resisting arrest, but swatting a cop's hand away is not a meaningful threat that requires escalation to that level of force. The cops escalated their use of force because they didn't like that he wasn't complying with their demands, not because there was an immediate threat requiring the use of greater force to protect innocent victims.

And no, in most jurisdictions (except for those that are run by those of your political leaning, where self-defense is frowned upon by "progressives") using unarmed means of self-defense to take down an assailant isn't a crime. Get your facts straight.

It is not a crime when it is self defense. However, escalating a situation when no immediate threat exists is not self defense and you will be charged with a crime if you do it.

Not just their safety, but the safe of the SUSPECT and BYSTANDERS, who could possible get hurt in a scuffle.

No credible threat to bystanders existed. If the cops had simply walked away and said "ok, we'll arrest you tomorrow" nobody would have been harmed. The only risk was to the perception that you must obey police demands without resistance and successfully avoiding arrest can not be possible.

So, in your sick,twisted view it's okay for cops to get killed or injured on the basis that their job is "dangerous", without using techniques and procedures to ensure they also get to go home safe at end of shift? Just because some criminal, violating the law, MIGHT have an unseen health issue that might cause problems in a lawful, non-lethal takedown? Their lives are only worth the salary that the taxpayers pay them?

It isn't a desired outcome when a cop is killed or injured, but that's one of the hazards of the job. You don't get to put someone else's life or safety at risk just because there's a chance that you might be in danger. If someone is claiming to be unable to breathe (IOW, in danger of dying) the mere possibility that they might grab your gun and kill you if you don't keep them pinned does not justify the chance of killing them if they are honestly unable to breathe. And remember, this was not a suspect in a violent crime where there was reasonable belief that they would escalate to murdering a police officer if given a chance. This is a guy whose sole crime was not paying taxes.

If you're talking about a maniac barricaded in a house threatening to shoot everyone in sight, one might have an argument about having to go out and actively pursue bad people in a combative environment. That's not largely what people are addressing however.

If you're talking about drawing a sidearm or engaging takedowns or other physical acts during an encounter at arms reach distances, particularly for a nonviolent offense, that excuse evaporates, anyone can find themselves in a situation like that. Going back to the Garner thing, had that been a bouncer at a bar ejecting an unruly patron as opposed to a cop busting a dude for selling loosies tax free, that bouncer almost certainly would be up on charges with a high likelihood of conviction.

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



That's a great epitaph.. "Killed for selling loose cigarettes".

GG

 generalgrog wrote:


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



That's a great epitaph.. "Killed for selling loose cigarettes".

GG

In Garner's case, the anger ought to be directed at NY tax laws that encourages black market "loosies". I mean, I'm sure the police would rather NOT have to enforce these types of laws.

In relation to the Garner case specifically (It's probably getting a bit off topic for this thread, no?), I find it incredibly suspect that the first officer on the scene at his death, had arrested him no less than THREE previous times.

In a city as big as New York, hell, in a Borough as big as whichever one Garner was standing in... how fething probably is it that the Same fething cop arrests the same dude on at least three separate occasions?? That to me, is not policing... That to me is a personal grudge, or a vendetta, or even if we feel like being nice to the cop, it's a thought process of, "Ohh, I got that guy before... I'm behind on my quota, Imma git 'im good today!"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
In relation to the Garner case specifically (It's probably getting a bit off topic for this thread, no?), I find it incredibly suspect that the first officer on the scene at his death, had arrested him no less than THREE previous times.

In a city as big as New York, hell, in a Borough as big as whichever one Garner was standing in... how fething probably is it that the Same fething cop arrests the same dude on at least three separate occasions?? That to me, is not policing... That to me is a personal grudge, or a vendetta, or even if we feel like being nice to the cop, it's a thought process of, "Ohh, I got that guy before... I'm behind on my quota, Imma git 'im good today!"

It's bad priorities more than anything. NYC levies a massive cigarette tax and they want every penny of it so they don't like crimes that cut into that revenue stream and they make sure that NYPD understands that. Garner was a repeat offender so he was an easy mark to rack up arrests showing that the cops were aggressively enforcing city tax policy, win win for everybody except Garner.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
In relation to the Garner case specifically (It's probably getting a bit off topic for this thread, no?), I find it incredibly suspect that the first officer on the scene at his death, had arrested him no less than THREE previous times.

In a city as big as New York, hell, in a Borough as big as whichever one Garner was standing in... how fething probably is it that the Same fething cop arrests the same dude on at least three separate occasions?? That to me, is not policing... That to me is a personal grudge, or a vendetta, or even if we feel like being nice to the cop, it's a thought process of, "Ohh, I got that guy before... I'm behind on my quota, Imma git 'im good today!"

It's bad priorities more than anything. NYC levies a massive cigarette tax and they want every penny of it so they don't like crimes that cut into that revenue stream and they make sure that NYPD understands that. Garner was a repeat offender so he was an easy mark to rack up arrests showing that the cops were aggressively enforcing city tax policy, win win for everybody except Garner.

See, I get the aspect that he's almost certainly a "known quantity" within the precinct.... What I question is just how much one individual cop "targeted" him. I mean, it's one thing for Barney Fife to pull over the same kid for cruisin' the main drag in Mayberry... but we're talking an area with literally millions of people.

RULE #1 is BE POLITE.

DEBATE THE POINTS, DO NOT ATTACK THE USER.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

See, I get the aspect that he's almost certainly a "known quantity" within the precinct....

Which, theoretically, should mean his health issues were known.

Perhaps, perhaps not... We know also that most law enforcement offices have budget "challenges," which I suppose could also lead to them not knowing he had health issues.

 generalgrog wrote:
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.

Or to listen when he said "I can't breathe", warning the police that he was in danger.

I'm sorry Peregrine but if he was able to gasp "I can't breathe" he was clearly fully able to breathe with no issue.

/s

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I watched the video taken by a bystander. The accusation that the cop choked him to death in a "choke hold" was complete horse
(snip)
The police were doing their jobs and following SOP.

Eric Garner had, per the autopsy, muscle hemorrhages in his neck and petechial hemorrhages in his eyes. This is clear evidence he was choked. This is a fact, not an opinion.

Additionally, if the police did their jobs and followed SOP, it's curious they conspicuously avoided any mention of contact with his neck in any initial reports, at least until the video came out.

It's bizarre the things some people will chose to give a full throated defense of, such as the right of the police to summarily execute a guy for selling loose cigarettes.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Indeed, not only do they prioritize their own safety far above anything else for a job they knew was dangerous going in, but the level of force utilized at even the most minimal threat or likelyhood of a threat, as a matter of course, is far beyond what would be considered acceptable under the same circumstances from private citizen. The shoots that police get cleared on routinely would often land a private CHL holder in prison for murder for the exact same shoot.

No they don't always prioritize their safety over all others. Officer safety is just as important as the safety of the suspect and bystanders. That's why quickly subduing the suspect is critical in an arrest situation.

And the reason that police can use measures beyond what is acceptable for private citizens is because they are the police, with the authority to detain and arrest, and the responsibility to go after criminals. Which means sometimes using force beyond what is allowable to the private citizen, who should only be concerned with self-defense, not going out of their way to get into a dangerous situation (which police do in order to catch criminals)

Yes they do.

Case in point, Amadou Diallo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. At about 12:40 a.m., police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy, who were all in street clothes, passed by in a Ford Taurus. Caroll later testified that Diallo matched the general description of a serial rapist who had struck a year earlier, or that he might have been a lookout.[5][5][6][7]

The officers testified that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers, but a witness, Schrrie Elliott, testified that they started shooting without any warnings.[6] Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. Seeing the man holding a small square object, Carroll yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. Mistakenly believing Diallo had aimed a gun at them at close range, the officers opened fire on Diallo. During the shooting, lead officer McMellon tripped backward off the front stairs, causing the other officers to believe he had been shot. The four officers fired 41 shots, more than half of which went astray as Diallo was hit 19 times.[1][8]

The post-shooting investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a rectangular black wallet. The internal NYPD investigation ruled the officers had acted within policy, based on what a reasonable police officer would have done in the same circumstances with the information they had.

If I, as a concealed carry permit holder, shoot and kill a man because I mistake the wallet in his hand for a gun, I'm getting charged with murder and will likely go to prison. If a cop does it, it's an honest mistake and is ok because shooting somebody because you think he might possibly be holding a gun is department policy.

As a citizen if I saw an unarmed black man and an autistic man with a toy truck in the street, decided to get my rifle, point it at them and accidently shot the unarmed man in the leg I would be charged with a crime and likely convicted and sent to prison. But it's ok if a cop does it because that toy truck might have possibly sorta looked like a gun.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/north-miami-cop-shoots-unarmed-black-man-with-hands-in-air-trying-to-help-autistic-patient-8617310

A few years ago in Georgia cops threw a flash bang grenade into a baby's crib while executing a no knock warrant at a house based on an unconfirmed tip from an informant, maiming the baby for life, finding no drugs, weapons or any illegal activity at the residence but the cops suffered no consequences for attacking a baby with a grenade because the SWAT team followed procedure because blindly lobbing grenades into rooms is necessary to keep officers safe.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/04/how-cops-become-baby-burners


There are over a million LEOs in the US and over the course of a year they'll combine to have hundreds of millions of interactions with the public. Those interaction will typically result in about 2,500 people dying and about 125-150 cops dying in the line of duty annually. Given those statistics it's plainly evident that most police are never going to kill anyone or be killed because such events only happen in a tiny fraction of the interactions police have with the public yet for some reason we have decided that it's practical to train cops as if the populace is actively trying to kill them.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I'm sorry Peregrine but if he was able to gasp "I can't breathe" he was clearly fully able to breathe with no issue.

/s

Nothing about being held to the ground so hard that you're lungs are incapable of expanding sufficiently to supply your body with oxygen necessary for living prevents you from using your vocal cords. It's called positional asphyxiation, andn any number of police used holds can induce it (some are purposefully designed to).

I.E. Being able to say "I can't breathe" is not evidence that you in fact can breathe. The amount of air you need to speak is much lower than the amount you need to inhale to not die.

My feels are more factual than your reals, LoH.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
My feels are more factual than your reals, LoH.

You're sarcasm is too strong, and my srs is too dense (as in I completely missed the /s on my first read through lmao)

 LordofHats wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
My feels are more factual than your reals, LoH.

You're sarcasm is too strong, and my srs is too dense (as in I completely missed the /s on my first read through lmao)

That is alright, I wanted to post and say that isn't how it works, even though I saw the /s. But that is because I am sure there are people that think it does work like that.