If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Breaking news is indicating that NYC grand jury declined to indict the officer who choked Eric Garner to death on video. Even when using a chokehold that has been illegal for 20 years a black man still can't get justice against a police officer using excessive force. Let the excuses begin ....
Honestly I've seen it reported both ways. Regardless, when a man is one the ground with a bunch of cops on top of him and he says "I can't breath" 11 f*cking times and you continue to choke him out that's excessive force anyway you slice it!
OAW
PS: And this case is a prime example of why even body cams will not be any sort of panacea. Black males can get killed on video and it's still not even worthy of a trial in this country.
when a man is one the ground with a bunch of cops on top of him and he says "I can't breath" 11 f*cking times and you continue to choke him out that's excessive force anyway you slice it!
But how can the cops know he's not lying to try and escape? /semi-serious
PS: And this case is a prime example of why even body cams will not be any sort of panacea. Black males can get killed on video and it's still not even worthy of a trial in this country.
I think you're overreacting because of the situation. They may not solve the problem 100%, but that's a stupid goal for one solution. It reduces police misbehavior, pacifies interactions, and reduces complaints. There is nothing there you shouldn't want, even if applies across the board equally.
Police officer fired for refusing to turn on body cam
Albuquerque investigates the shooting of a 19-year-old that should be on tape.
by Joe Mullin - Dec 3 2014, 2:35pm EST
ShareTweet
54
The idea of putting body-worn cameras on police officers has spread since protests and unrest following the shooting of an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Missouri. Earlier this week, the Obama administration proposed federal funding to get 50,000 more officers equipped with the cameras.
The increased use of cameras makes a few policy questions around them more pressing. One such question: what happens when a police officer fails—or straight-up refuses—to turn on the body camera?
The issue was highlighted in today's Wall Street Journal, which features a story about a New Mexico police officer who "was fired for allegedly not following an order to record and upload all contacts with citizens," according to the Albuquerque Police Department and the officer's lawyer.
Officer Jeremy Dear shot and killed a 19-year-old woman in April, an incident that heightened the already intense scrutiny of the Albuquerque Police Department. The city's police department had earlier reached a deal with the US Department of Justice, after a federal investigation concluded that police there "had used a pattern of excessive force."
Dear's lawyer, Thomas Grover, says the officer tried to activate the camera but couldn't. He also says there was never an order issued to record all citizen contacts.
The department says Dear's action was deliberate. “Insubordination tears at the fabric of public safety, especially when the officer makes a choice not to follow a lawful order," said the city's police chief in a statement.
"If they fire every officer who doesn't turn on his uniform camera, they won't have anyone left on the department," Grover told a Reuters reporter. "I think the department is struggling to get the lapel camera policy in place and set an example of him to show the Department of Justice they are doing something."
1. That's debatable. Wilson gave a statement that Brown hit him so hard on the LEFT side of his face that he thought he was going to pass out. He claimed repeated punches by Brown. But his infamous "injury" is on the RIGHT side of his face. Not a bruise. A red mark that the grand jury transcripts show the jurors had trouble even seeing in the photograph. Furthermore, no physical evidence on Brown's hands to indicate any sort of punches. No cuts, scrapes, bruising. Nothing.
Looking at your response to me for the first question (I'm trying to keep this in manageable hunks), it appears you are claiming the mismatch between Wilson's marks and his description of being of being assaulted is evidence he wasn't assaulted at all.
My argument is even an objectively innocent Wilson has enormous motivation to flat-out lie. There's minimal chance for him to be charged for it, and the crime of perjury is a whole lot smaller than first degree anyways. To put it another way, there is no reason for Wilson to trust the GJ to be objective, and several reasons for him to assist them in coming to a final determination which matches the objective conclusion, even if doing so involves playing fast and loose with the truth.
IOW, a guilty Wilson, and an innocent Wilson, would likely behave the same way.
Does the (obvious IMO) self-serving nature of Wilson's testimony increase the probability he commited a crime? Abso-****ing-lutely. I'm not questioning that for a second. What I'm asking is "how much?" Considering his motivation to lie, I would say "not much". Further, Wilson's claim he was hit has to affect the probabilities as well. I think calling that a wash is being exceedingly reasonable to Brown's case.
If we take it as a wash, this leaves us...
Reducing probabilty:
No marks on Brown's hands
Brown's unremarkable conversation with the construction worker (forgot about this)
Increasing probability:
Marks on Wilson
Johnson's testimony there were times he couldn't see Brown's hands
Johnson's testimony Brown was emphatically resisting
Video from the store
A note on the last two in case they seem irrelevant. If Johnson had testified Brown was passive, that would have lowered the probability of Wilson's story. By what mechanism is the converse not increasing it? Same with the video. If it had just showed Brown buying the cigarillos, it would have reduced the reduced the probability. By what mechanism is the converse not increasing it?
It's very hard for me to look at the balance of probable vs. improbable above and come up with an improbable determination for Wilson getting hit, especially since I'm getting half the reasons from the person who is most hostile to him. If we allow Wilson a simple yes/no as to whether he was hit, it becomes impossible.
I think you're overreacting because of the situation. They may not solve the problem 100%, but that's a stupid goal for one solution. It reduces police misbehavior, pacifies interactions, and reduces complaints. There is nothing there you shouldn't want, even if applies across the board equally.
Oh don't get me wrong. I'm not saying body cams won't help do all that. I'm just saying clearly it will only go so far ...
I forgot, the coroner ruled the death a homicide. How do you square that circle?
Well Mike Brown's death was also ruled a "homicide". That only means he was killed. Legally the question comes to to whether or not a "crime" was committed. And in both instances the grand jury has basically decided that there is not enough probable cause ... the lowest standard in the entire judicial system ... to think that a crime MAY have been committed. Wow. Just f*cking wow!
The more proof we pile up, the harder it will be for detractors to ignore and supporters to sit back on.
Yup, it's harder to ignore injustice if you can see it on video, and you can form your own opinion on whether or not it was justified. That's much harder if all you have to go on is a lot of weak forensic evidence and eye witnesses.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Looking at your response to me for the first question (I'm trying to keep this in manageable hunks), it appears you are claiming the mismatch between Wilson's marks and his description of being of being assaulted is evidence he wasn't assaulted at all.
Several witnesses described the struggle at the car being Wilson grabbing Brown and Brown trying to pull away from his grip. Wilson describes it as the deranged "demon", "hulk hogan" sized black man attacking him unprovoked and punching him repeatedly so hard that he thought he was going to pass out and feared for his life enough to pull his gun. The physical evidence seems to support the former more than the latter. Though it could have been something in between.
Originally Posted by subego
My argument is even an objectively innocent Wilson has enormous motivation to flat-out lie. There's minimal chance for him to be charged for it, and the crime of perjury is a whole lot smaller than first degree anyways.
Exactly! And the fact that there is no physical evidence to suggest that Wilson was involved in a struggle even REMOTELY as he described it should give a reasonable person plenty of cause to question his version of events OUTSIDE the vehicle as well. Hence, why an actual trial where he statements would be subject to cross-examination was in order.
Regarding this Eric Garner grand jury decision in NYC ... let's be clear. The grand jury could have indicted this cop on a range of charges, from murder to a lesser included offense such as reckless endangerment. Again, look at the VIDEO yourself and ask yourself how there was no probable cause even for the latter! And if anyone can come up with something please post it. I'm sure it'll be a doozy.
OAW
PS: Staten Island is the whitest, most politically conservative borough in NYC. Populated by lots of cops, firefighters, and their families. Think Simi Valley in the Rodney King trial. And this is the "thug" who apparently deserved his fate in the minds of some people.
As I said in the Mike Brown situation, when the DA takes a case of police misconduct to the grand jury the FIX IS IN!!!! 99% of the time a grand jury NEVER indicts a police officer.
"A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich," the famous saying goes. But a Staten Island grand jury's decision not to indict officer Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner was likely prompted by the prosecutor, Richmond County District Attorney Daniel Donovan, Jr. "There is no question that a grand jury will do precisely what the prosecutor wants, virtually 100% of the time," says James Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University who specializes in criminal procedure. "This was, as was the case in Missouri, orchestrated by the prosecutor."
While most legal experts believed that the grand jury did not have enough evidence to prove a murder charge, the grand jury could have charged Pantaleo with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.
"In this case, you had videotape, and the videotape is pretty darn clear," Cohen says. "The video showed that the officer engaged in a long-prohibited conduct, a chokehold, and it doesn't seem to make any difference to the jury. And that's because the prosecutor decided that there should be no indictment for any criminal behavior."
Randolph McLaughlin, a law professor at Pace Law School and civil rights attorney, agreed.
"The grand jury is a tool of the prosecutor. At a minimum, it was negligent, it was reckless, it was some level of homicide. Surely they could have indicted this officer on any number of charges and let the public hear, let a trial happen, expose to the light of day what went on here. This man is a public servant, and he committed these acts as a public servant, wearing the uniform of a public servant, and he should be called to account for it."
In a statement, DA Donovan noted that he is barred from disclosing any details surrounding what took place during the grand jury proceeding, but that he petitioned for the information to be released on a court order.
Jeffrey Fagan, a law professor at Columbia who specializes in police accountability and criminal law, says he was "not surprised" by the grand jury's decision.
"It’s politically costly for Dan Donovan to indict a police officer on Staten Island. He can easily shift the political and legal burden to the Department of Justice to decide whether to pursue criminal charges. He’s washed his hands of it."
Fagan says that the federal civil rights statute "is a big hurdle to get over. Not impossible, but it will take some work."
Cohen was skeptical that the federal government would pursue charges against Pantaleo.
"You see these things coming one after another after another after another, you hear black parents being afraid to let their children go out in the street in day or night, maybe that will tip the balance. But I fear that's my own naiveté speaking."
McLaughlin, who has handled cases of wrongful death involving the police since 1997, said he was "almost speechless" after hearing of the grand jury's decision.
"Look at the facts of the case, and the videotape, and the fact that the officer has his arm around the man's neck in a chokehold, and the man is saying 'I can't breathe.' If you can't indict that cop for anything, then basically you can't indict a cop for killing a black man, period."
Breaking news is indicating that NYC grand jury declined to indict the officer who choked Eric Garner to death on video. Even when using a chokehold that has been illegal for 20 years a black man still can't get justice against a police officer using excessive force. Let the excuses begin ....
Techicaly, Garner had a heart attack as a result of the choke hold; so yes, the choke hold "killed"" him. Use of the choke has been prohibited by NYPD since 1993.
As I said in the Mike Brown situation, when the DA takes a case of police misconduct to the grand jury the FIX IS IN!!!! 99% of the time a grand jury NEVER indicts a police officer.
A St. Louis County grand jury decided Monday that police officer Darren Wilson will not face trial for shooting and killing unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Grand juries usually return indictments; the one exception is cases involving police shootings. But more than that, police shootings, and allegations of police misconduct in general, almost never make it in front of a grand jury. And officers rarely face legal consequences for allegations of misconduct.
That's for all those who want to convince themselves that the Darren Wilson walked because of the "evidence".
You know if you think all these people you're posting have said solid things, maybe you should post the relevant quotes?
You have to see such postings for the purpose they serve. It is simply to dig up an example of that rare oddity called a "black conservative" who is more than willing to tell conservative white people what they want to hear. The "black conservative" gets plenty of notoriety and financial gain because he is essentially selling his "novelty". The conservative white crowd gets someone they can use as a shield against charges of racism among their ranks. It's a "win-win" for them both. Jonathan Gentry, Ben Carson, David Clarke, et al are bigger "race hustlers" than Al Sharpton could ever be. You see Sharpton is a civil-rights activist. That's what he does. It's part of his job description. Ben Carson is a very well-respected pediatric neurosurgeon. The man's story is simply incredible. And it is most definitely not in his job description to make ridiculous comments like this to rooms full of lily-white people ...
Originally Posted by Dr. Ben Carson
You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.
So what other explanation is there for him to say something that is so demonstrably false? I mean ... even if you disagree with Obamacare as a policy matter ... a slavery comparison? Really? So it was worse than a century of Jim Crow? 144 years that women were denied the right to vote? The 420K US lives lost in WW II? The Vietnam War? The 911 attacks? Seriously?
More info on the Tamir Rice case ... the 12 year old black boy who was killed by a white police officer while playing with a pellet gun. Now as I said earlier in the thread, this pellet gun looked like the real thing. So if his parents allowed him as a black child to have it given all these trigger happy cops he would eventually encounter then they clearly must have lost their minds. That being said, we aren't really sure how he got it. Could have been a friends. Might have found it. Who knows? In any event ... ONCE AGAIN the initial police story doesn't match the video evidence.
Cleveland Police officials told a different story about what happened to Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old shot and killed by a Cleveland Police officer over the weekend of November 22, than what's visible in the available video footage of the shooting.
MSNBC's Chris Hayes broke down some the discrepancies between the police's side of the story and what actually happened, and what can be seen in the video surveillance footage released by police a couple days after the shooting.
Police said, according to the Plain Dealer, that Rice was sitting under a pavilion in the park with a few people, suggesting that the boy could have been a threat to others. But the video footage shows Rice was sitting alone as police pulled up.
Police also claimed, according to the Associated Press, that the officer who opened fire on Rice asked the boy to put his hands up three times, suggesting that Rice was given ample warning before he was shot. The video footage doesn't disprove this, but it suggests the officer who shot Rice, Timothy Loehmann, would have given the commands fairly quickly — Loehmann shot Rice within two seconds of his squad car pulling up to the park pavilion.
"Taken together, [the police account] sounds like it could have been a really threatening situation," Hayes said. "But this time, unlike in Ferguson, there is a video, and it tells a pretty different story."
Please follow the link and see the video for yourself. You can clearly see that the kid was by himself. No threat to anyone else at all. Yet the police drove across the grass and pulled up a couple of feet away from him. Now pause for a moment. WTF would they do that? Wouldn't it make more sense to pull up at a distance, get out and crouch behind the door of the police vehicle for their own safety ... rather than roll right up to someone who has been reported to have a gun? And then give the commands to drop the weapon? But that's not what happened. They rolled right up on this kid ... the cop jumped out the passenger door before the police vehicle even stopped moving ... and IMMEDIATELY shot that kid dead! He was shot on sight ... just like that John Crawford who was holding the toy rifle in the Walmart was while he was talking on his cell phone to his girlfriend.
Nonetheless ... chances are this cop will walk too. Despite this ...
Tim Loehmann, the Cleveland police officer who fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice, had been judged back in 2012 to be unfit for service while he worked for the Independence Police Department.
Newly obtained records show that the department’s deputy chief wrote some very critical things about Loehmann two years ago. For example, he said Loehmann was “distracted” and “weepy” during firearms qualification training, and that “I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies.”
Loehmann even said, “He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal.”
He recommended the department part ways with Loehmann. Loehmann left and, of course, ended up joining the Cleveland police. It’s unclear how much information from Independence was made aware to his superiors in Cleveland.
In the video it appears that he did reach into his waistband as one hand pulls up his shirt. That's just... I strongly doubt the police could even see the gun until they pulled up, since it looks like it was under his shirt, likely someone driving by called 911 when they saw Tamir walking around with what appeared to be a handgun. That all aside, it's very tragic, no kid should be walking around town with a BB or pellet gun, the worst possible things can happen.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I agree with everything you just said. Except the part about the 911 call. It was someone in the park who called. Who also told the dispatcher that the gun was "probably fake". And it looked to be a "juvenile". It is very tragic indeed. By no means am I suggesting that this officer deemed "unfit for service" set out to kill a black kid. Not saying that at all. But I stand by my points about how they handled this situation. Why roll up right on him? Why not give him a chance to comply with a police command that in all likelihood was never spoken given the second or two before he was killed? And then why LIE about the circumstances on the initial police report that the video clearly disproves?
IOW ... why couldn't he had been handled like this white guy who was waving a REAL gun at people in a park and the cops wounded him from a distance and took him to the hospital? Alive. As opposed to being shot on sight?
You can ignore such postings becasue they are quotes from Toms.
Uncle Tom is so last century. Uncle Ruckus is more relevant today.
Uncle Ruckus (also known as Rev. Uncle Ruckus and Rev. Fr. Uncle Ruckus, as well as Uncle Ruckus, no relation) is the main antagonist from the comic strip The Boondocks and the television series based on the comic.
An old angry man who claims to have had a disease that started when he was a baby turning his skin color from white to black, he disassociates himself from other African Americans as much as possible as a result of this excuse, and is outspoken in his support of what Huey calls the "white supremacist power structure."
Yup, we latinos breed faster than anyone else, too.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Several witnesses described the struggle at the car being Wilson grabbing Brown and Brown trying to pull away from his grip. Wilson describes it as the deranged "demon", "hulk hogan" sized black man attacking him unprovoked and punching him repeatedly so hard that he thought he was going to pass out and feared for his life enough to pull his gun. The physical evidence seems to support the former more than the latter. Though it could have been something in between.
Exactly! And the fact that there is no physical evidence to suggest that Wilson was involved in a struggle even REMOTELY as he described it should give a reasonable person plenty of cause to question his version of events OUTSIDE the vehicle as well. Hence, why an actual trial where he statements would be subject to cross-examination was in order.
OAW
This may surprise you, but you are giving Wilson a benefit of the doubt I am not giving him.
At least with regards to events up until Wilson fires on the street, I am considering Dorian Johnson's testimony to be 100% accurate. I make a single exception for the fact Johnson recalls one shot from inside the SUV, while there were two casings found nearby.
I need to hammer on what I just said. The foundation of my analysis is taking the single best source of evidence against Wilson, and then totally ignoring any potential for bias or false recollection. I posit you can't be more fair to Brown than that. There is no testimony more damning to Wilson, and there is no way to subject it to analysis which is more sympathetic to Brown.
Unfortunately, Johnson can't tell us whether Brown hit Wilson. His own testimony states there were times he didn't have a view of Brown's hand. We have to look at the other available evidence.
While Johnson can't testify as to what Brown was doing with his right hand at all times during the event, he can (and did) testify as to Brown's behavior during the altercation. Nothing Johnson says about Brown's behavior during said altercation is incongruent with Brown hitting Wilson.
We have video of Brown being violent.
Wilson had (very light) marks, and exactly as you say, Brown had no marks on his hands. I need to make a very important point here... the question we are asking is not did Brown's hands match Wilson's description of having been hit, we are asking did Brown's hands match the forensic analysis of the injuries to Wilson's face. They did.
We have Brown's normal interaction with the construction worker.
In other words, there is literally one single piece of evidence Brown didn't hit Wilson: the conversation with the construction worker. Everything else either doesn't contradict Brown hitting Wilson, or actively provides support for the notion.
I need to make it clear here if it isn't already... I haven't even considered Wilson's testimony. I'm going solely off forensic evidence, the video, and the testimony of Johnson.
What am I supposed to do with this as a juror? With regards to the question of whether Brown hit Wilson, Brown's best defense is some of the strangers he interacted with that morning didn't get assaulted...
And Wilson hasn't even given us his dumbass pig testimony yet.
Think how many jurors say after a shocking acquittal, "oh... I know they're guilty, but I wasn't provided the evidence to prove it". That's what this situation is. Even bending over backwards to accomodate Brown, I haven't been given the evidence to exonerate him on the charge of hitting Wilson.
(
Last edited by subego; Dec 4, 2014 at 03:38 AM.
)
First all all ... you don't know anything whatsoever about Mike Brown to make the statement that he was "accustomed to bullying people". Let's call that for what it is. A teenager walks out with a handful of cigarillos that were worth several dollars tops ... and then "shoves the manager" who grabbed him first. And yes ... it's not a good look. He should have been ARRESTED ... not EXECUTED for it. But you have no basis whatsoever to pass judgment on what he was or was not "accustomed to". You have evidence of a single incident of bad behavior on Brown's part and you immediately paint his entire existence with the broad brush of "thug". You have no history you can point to to justify such a statement. So quite frankly .... you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
OAW
Well, apparently the Gentle Giant was no stranger to the gang behaviour:
Anyone wants to guess what type of behaviour would come from emulating da thugs?
Even if you ignore da skreet life, just look at the fabulous step-father giving his "burn dis mofferfocker down!" speech:
Great parenting values!
You have to see such postings for the purpose they serve. It is simply to dig up an example of that rare oddity called a "black conservative" who is more than willing to tell conservative white people what they want to hear.
Does he realize he's telling this to a white guy? Have I shown some kind of bias towards black spokesmen or something?
Originally Posted by OAW
They rolled right up on this kid ... the cop jumped out the passenger door before the police vehicle even stopped moving ... and IMMEDIATELY shot that kid dead! He was shot on sight
I'm waiting to hear some response on this. You could say the kid was stupid, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe what the cops did there was their job or even sound procedure for this kind of situation.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
In the video it appears that he did reach into his waistband as one hand pulls up his shirt. That's just... I strongly doubt the police could even see the gun until they pulled up, since it looks like it was under his shirt, likely someone driving by called 911 when they saw Tamir walking around with what appeared to be a handgun. That all aside, it's very tragic, no kid should be walking around town with a BB or pellet gun, the worst possible things can happen.
DO you think the police approached the situation correctly?
DO you think the police approached the situation correctly?
The approach was probably within dept regulations, though I wouldn't have done that. Most likely I would have pulled up further away and used the comm to tell him to lay down on the ground with his hands on his head. If he ignored that and still drew the pellet gun, however... that would be tough to identify at 20' or more, without the now-mandatory orange tip. I would at least tell him to drop it and wait a couple beats for him to comply before escalating.
They should be shit-canned for falsifying a report.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
...and worthy of a death sentence. Better the alleged criminal dies than escapes to... sell unmarked cigarettes another day?
why is that even a Class C felony in NYC? That's the same as selling <50g of heroine.
Also, FWIW, S&F is simply flat-out wrong, it's a clear violation of civil liberties.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I highly doubt a taser would have induced the same reaction, but yes, they probably would.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Most likely I would have pulled up further away and used the comm to tell him to lay down on the ground with his hands on his head.
That ran through my head as well. Doesn't seem hard ...or dangerous.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
They should be shit-canned for falsifying a report.
Yuuuuuuuuup
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
why is that even a Class C felony in NYC?
Is that the cigarettes thing? I dunno, maybe they had issues with a lot of cigarettes falling off the back of trailers.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Also, FWIW, S&F is simply flat-out wrong, it's a clear violation of civil liberties.
I have no idea what you're referring to here.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Had they used a Tazer on Garner and it triggered the heart attack that did kill him, would everone still want the officer who used the tazer charged?
Are we talking one tazering? Because if so, probably not (Unless he yelled he had a pacemaker or something). You have to encourage use of non-lethal force. (That's why we have mace, too).
If they tazer his four times, I become a lot less sympathetic, demon powers or not.
Is that the cigarettes thing? I dunno, maybe they had issues with a lot of cigarettes falling off the back of trailers.
I have no idea what you're referring to here.
One has to wonder why one of the most liberal cities in the US has the most draconian laws and policies.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top