Ferguson Missouri

2»

Comments

  • trigs wrote: »
    all police officers must have an active camera and microphone attached to them at all times while on duty. problem solved.

    I dont understand how its 2014 and all officers dont have some form of micro go-pro camera with the *literal* billions of dollars they are funded by in Canada and the US. It should be instated in ALL 1st world countries police forces uniforms, like built in.

    People who can murder and get away scott free should never have unmonitored freedom while ON the job. This is why people hate and fear the police forces. Is it some huge scheme so they can do corrupt things and basically run themselves with zero reprocussion? who knows, but its soooo shady.
  • Looks like video evidence won't make a big difference in regards to charges...

    Cop cleared in chokehold death of Eric Garner | New York Post

    Mark
  • Not commenting on the specifics, because I have not read the deets on this one, but one thing struck me in the linked article . . . it mentions that the victim was screaming, "I can't breathe, I can't breathe". Sorry, but if you can talk, you ARE breathing.


    That is all.
  • Obviously you must be right. Total coincidence that he died right there and then. It was probably just to spite the officers for not beleiving his distress. Please ignore the banned choke hold and the coroner's report of homicide.

    Well at least one supremely dangerous illegal cigarette pusher is off the streets.
  • Not the point I was making at all . . . but thanks for caring.


    Primary cause of death for Garner was a heart attack. ME said it was likely brought on by his obesity, asthma, and the incident with the Officer involved.

    For the record, the "if you can talk, you're breathing" is something known as a "fact". As someone who has actually suffered the effects of "choking" (ie the inability to take in air to your lungs), talking/screaming is the LAST thing on your mind.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Not the point I was making at all . . . but thanks for caring.


    Primary cause of death for Garner was a heart attack. ME said it was likely brought on by his obesity, asthma, and the incident with the Officer involved.

    For the record, the "if you can talk, you're breathing" is something known as a "fact". As someone who has actually suffered the effects of "choking" (ie the inability to take in air to your lungs), talking/screaming is the LAST thing on your mind.

    You realize this is yet another instance of trying to distance / excuse / blame the victim right? And yes, I do know the whole "if you can make noise, there is air passage" thing, but the group of men dog piling and choking the guy over some fucking Marlboro's does seem a little more ridiculous than "but he was able to make noise so.."

    Mark
  • Hypocrite tho
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    You realize this is yet another instance of trying to distance / excuse / blame the victim right? And yes, I do know the whole "if you can make noise, there is air passage" thing, but the group of men dog piling and choking the guy over some fucking Marlboro's does seem a little more ridiculous than "but he was able to make noise so.."

    Mark

    The only point I was trying to make is about the laziness of the writer in using the passage they did. The notion of someone crying out, "I can't breathe" because they are being choked is nonsense.

    I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was not commenting on the details, and even went so far as to say WHY. So go fuck yourself with your "blaming the victim" bullshit, because the ONLY person I am blaming is the WRITER, and the ONLY thing I am blaming them for is laziness.
  • Milo wrote: »
    The only point I was trying to make is about the laziness of the writer in using the passage they did. The notion of someone crying out, "I can't breathe" because they are being choked is nonsense.

    I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was not commenting on the details, and even went so far as to say WHY. So go fuck yourself with your "blaming the victim" bullshit, because the ONLY person I am blaming is the WRITER, and the ONLY thing I am blaming them for is laziness.

    You may want to be more clear about that, because I'd bet the vast majority of people that don't have you on ignore wouldn't have read it that way.

    Mark
  • Fat people really need to stop resisting arrest.
  • DrTyore wrote: »
    You may want to be more clear about that, because I'd bet the vast majority of people that don't have you on ignore wouldn't have read it that way.

    Mark

    From my post . . .


    Not commenting on the specifics, because I have not read the deets on this one, but one thing struck me in the linked article . . . it mentions that the victim was screaming, "I can't breathe, I can't breathe". Sorry, but if you can talk, you ARE breathing.


    That is all.

    Then maybe that "vast majority" should read and think a little more closely before jumping to a conclusion . . .

    I am hardly an apologist for the Cops (see Sammy Yatim thread), and I DO think that body cameras should be mandatory as a tool for monitoring police interactions with the public (and vice versa).

    Having read a little bit about this particular case last night, it is pretty clear that the decision of the Grand Jury is a joke. Regardless of the method used in taking Garner to the ground to effect an arrest, the claim by the officer that he "got off the suspect as quickly as possible" is not supported by the video evidence. Whatever contribution Garner's health issues made to his fatal heart attack do not alter the contributions that the physical nature of his arrest made to that same event.

    The ONLY way to determine the PRIMARY cause of that event would have been a trial, which the public are now denied. Ridiculous.
  • it's true that cameras on cops won't 100% stop the problems. however, i do think it will help alleviate them somewhat. i honestly don't think this is a problem that can be 100% stopped. if you give a person authority over others, there are bound to be some that take advantage of that authority. even if all police were robots programmed to act perfectly, someone in charge could come along and alter the program or it could get hacked or something. we'll never have a policing system that has absolutely no corruption, but trying to alleviate as much as possible will obviously be beneficial.
  • In regards to the New York case...

    I take issue with the whole 'broken windows' approach to law enforcement in New York. The basic principle is that Officers should go after the smallest crimes in the bad areas of towns as the high end criminals will be caught in the net as they too tend to do the little things.

    What results is a police force that treats every tiny little criminal action or suspicion thereof as a high level crime and treats the perpetrator with the same caution and aggression they would for a very serious crime bcause they expect a certain number of these people to be high level criminals.

    While in reality the majority of the time it's just someone 'selling loose cigarettes' and the real risks to the 'crimninal' involved in using some of the high level techniques taught to the Officers are not balanced against the minor crime being committed or suspected of being committed.
  • In regards to the New York case...

    I take issue with the whole 'broken windows' approach to law enforcement in New York. The basic principle is that Officers should go after the smallest crimes in the bad areas of towns as the high end criminals will be caught in the net as they too tend to do the little things.

    What results is a police force that treats every tiny little criminal action or suspicion thereof as a high level crime and treats the perpetrator with the same caution and aggression they would for a very serious crime bcause they expect a certain number of these people to be high level criminals.

    While in reality the majority of the time it's just someone 'selling loose cigarettes' and the real risks to the 'crimninal' involved in using some of the high level techniques taught to the Officers are not balanced against the minor crime being committed or suspected of being committed.

    THIS. Though the "broken windows" approach does show results in terms of crime reduction . . . I have yet to see how those reductions balance out against the subject Awesome brings up.

    The biggest problem viz. police interactions with the public is that, up until recently (last 10 years? 20?), the job of a police officer was to protect the public from harm by the criminal elements of our society, even at risk of their lives. that was part and parcel of the generous pay and benefits that went with the job.

    That has morphed into the notion that Officers have a higher duty to themselves, to ensure that they "go home at the end of each shift". It breeds a level of "distance" within their behaviour that was not there before. A Cop is much more likely to escalate a confrontation if he feels any antagonism because he "just wants to get home in one piece".

    THAT is the issue that cameras will help address. At least in my opinion.
  • Colin408 wrote: »
    Is anyone else watching this live on CNN? It's insane to think that this type of rioting/violence happens in a North American city.... Thoughts?

    I think the last big riots we had were during the Rodney King trial. We have a huge lower class and racism is still ingrained in our system. Lots of crime and cops who fear for their lives and are ready to fire. Whenever something like Ferguson happens those tensions explode.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Not commenting on the specifics, because I have not read the deets on this one, but one thing struck me in the linked article . . . it mentions that the victim was screaming, "I can't breathe, I can't breathe". Sorry, but if you can talk, you ARE breathing.


    That is all.

    If you had been there would you have pointed that out to him? Maybe that would have reduced his anxiety somewhat. Perhaps it would have given him the strength required to break free of the officers in an attempt to get his hands around your neck. Perhaps instead of being literal in an attempt to prove a point of some sort you could see that what he meant was "I'm having great difficulty breathing, and I'm very afraid that if you continue I won't be able to breathe at all, which would starve my organs of oxygen and eventually cause me to expire". Since that's a bit of a mouthful he fell back on making erroneous complaints about the literal amount of oxygen he had in his lungs at the time.

    How do you not see how offensive some of the things you say are?
  • Because it is not offensive to point out that a standard tactic to get someone to "ease up" on you in a physical altercation is to indicate that you are in distress.

    Like yelling, "I can't breathe" in hopes the officer/attacker loosens their grip so you can break free. Went on a training day type of tour when I volunteered with Scouts and that actually IS one of the things Cops get trained on.

    All that being said, choke holds are no longer part of training because of the risks involved. The officer in question SHOULD have been facing charges, but got lucky at the Grand Jury stage.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Because it is not offensive to point out that a standard tactic to get someone to "ease up" on you in a physical altercation is to indicate that you are in distress.

    Like yelling, "I can't breathe" in hopes the officer/attacker loosens their grip so you can break free. Went on a training day type of tour when I volunteered with Scouts and that actually IS one of the things Cops get trained on.

    All that being said, choke holds are no longer part of training because of the risks involved. The officer in question SHOULD have been facing charges, but got lucky at the Grand Jury stage.

    I would agree with you, but if that was the point of that post, you hid it pretty deep down there.

    I actually think that point is a good one. Police have tough jobs, and once it gets to that point (and it seems like it didn't need to) the "possibility thinking" police brain is going full speed ahead.
  • Bfillmaff wrote: »
    jezebel link ...no thanks

    no prob. here's the original article that jezebel quotes that has the exact same statistics in it. perhaps you'll choose to read those instead and consider the possible implications.

    Sharp Racial Divisions in Reactions to Brown, Garner Decisions | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
  • What kills me about these stats is that "i dont know" gets only 9% of the vote. It should be 100%.
  • Even if the woman DID lie, the forensics still seem to support the claim that Brown did not have his hands raised when shot. Unless they've gone and done another autopsy.
  • trigs wrote: »
    white people are dumb

    "racism bad, white people dumb"
    -trigs 2014
  • Well, well, well.

    Ferguson prosecutor Robert McCulloch accused of lying in ANOTHER grand jury | Daily Mail Online
    State Prosecutor Bob McCulloch has been accused of using the secrecy of the grand jury to ‘cover up’ racism and inequity; of withholding evidence through ‘significant’ redactions in the public evidence dump; of falsely suggesting that the grand jury was unified in its final verdict and of lying before – 15 years ago - under uncannily similar circumstances.
Sign In or Register to comment.