[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

[Ravenpoe]

I wouldn't call this murder, I don't believe that the officers intended for the victim to die. But it is gross negligence, and a complete failure to identify a man in obvious distress.

That wasn't a choke hold the man was in, it was a headlock. Were it a choke hold, he wouldn't have been able to speak. Now, did that hold contribute to his death? Possibly. Did the position they forced him into? Absolutely. Did they entirely fail to respond when he tried to communicate his distress? Undoubtedly. And I'm upset that noone is being held accountable for the wrongful loss of life.

 

[AshburnerX]

There really is no response to this that could do ANYTHING to sway public opinion, short of firing the officers involved. But the Wall of Blue has made firing incompetent officers impossible.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I don't want to call steinman a heartless piece of shit, but when I read the above posts, it's really incredibly hard to stop myself from calling steinman a heartless piece of shit.

So any decision I might make to disobey the police may result in my death..

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

and we don't live in a police state.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I don't want to call steinman a heartless piece of shit, but when I read the above posts, it's really incredibly hard to stop myself from calling steinman a heartless piece of shit.



any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

any decision i might make to disobey the police may result in my death

and we don't live in a police state.

Pictured here, the police:

 

[Krisken]

 

[LittleSin]

So, is this really something the happened? Some comments are saying that isn't an NYPD uniform but a visual comparison yields little difference to me. I was googling it and I can't seem to find an confirmation.

If it did happen the NYPD are doing nothing to help themselves. In fact, I'd call it openly antagonistic.

 

[Bowielee]

Y'know, this whole thing is kind of turning me to Gas' side of the second amendment argument. Armed conflict is coming, and it ain't going to be pretty.

 

[figmentPez]

Any decision you might make to disobey the operating manual of a chainsaw may result in your death.

Any decision? What about the part that says to submit your warranty information? Will not sending in the attached card result in my death?
What about the "use only our brand of lubrication"? Do you really think that using quality third-party oil to lubricate your chainsaw is going to kill you?
What if the manual is misprinted and following the manual could result in my death?

Any decision you might make to disobey the laws regarding driving might result in your death.

Bullshit. A rolling stop at an intersection in the barren middle of nowhere isn't going to result in your death. Barring cars traveling faster than the speed of light, if you can see in all directions that there's nothing around, there's nothing to stop for.

Any decision you might make to disobey dietary or medical guidelines might result in your death.

Which medical guidelines? Because doctors don't always agree, nor do they always know best. Properly following medical guidelines can kill you, too.

But here's the thing about all of these: If your chainsaw blows up because you used rocket fuel instead of gasoline, that is a logical result of physical interactions. The chainsaw doesn't decide that it wants to kill you. If you drive too fast around a sharp curve and spin out of control, that's the logical result of physical interactions. The car doesn't decide that it is going to kill you. If you become morbidly obese because you live off of a diet of Twinkies and Mountain Dew, that's the logical result of physical interactions. The sugar doesn't make a decision to kill you.

If you're filming a police officer in public, and they tell you to stop, there is no logical result of physical interactions that causes your death. There is no way that standing there with a camera on a police officer causes a person to die unless that police officer chooses to kill. The police offer can tell the person to stop filming all they want, but if that person is then killed by the police officer, it's because the police officer chose to kill them, not because the physical laws of the universe caused that death. That is the difference, and that is why everyone is so upset at the assertion that any disobedience could result in death.

 

[AshburnerX]

If you're filming a police officer in public, and they tell you to stop, there is no logical result of physical interactions that causes your death. There is no way that standing there with a camera on a police officer causes a person to die unless that police officer chooses to kill. The police offer can tell the person to stop filming all they want, but if that person is then killed by the police officer, it's because the police officer chose to kill them, not because the physical laws of the universe caused that death. That is the difference, and that is why everyone is so upset at the assertion that any disobedience could result in death.

If the options are to do what an officer says or risk dying, even for non-violent misdemeanors or actual legal conduct, you are living in a police state.
If the police can escalate a situation by their mere presence and reputation, you are living in a police state.
If the police can avoid persecution for killing a man through their own misconduct, you are living in a police statement.

None of these things are caused by the public. They are caused by a police force that is more concerned with their own self perpetuation than with serving the public good. The public good is not served when the public feels that the odds of them walking away from an encounter with the police are up to the mere chance that they got one of the good ones and absolute submission.

 

[Necronic]

Perhaps I am heartless. I make choices based on logical risk. I obey the police because I'm more likely to get more of what I want, and less of what I don't want if I cooperate.

This is a pretty good example of white privilege. Don't be offended, its the exact same line of thought I have. Do what the police say, everything will work out ok. But that's because, as white people, we have every expectation of fair treatment. This line of reasoning though can not be expected from a group that has a history of systematic abuses perpetrated on them by police. Which is hard, or really...impossible, for us to appreciate as whites. Which is why its such a good example of privilege.

 

[Null]

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1204sm.html

I don't know anything about the news outlet, but the source seems solid.

Was not surprised by the following comment:

HWSamson December 05, 2014 at 7:06 AM
The police are the first and final defense of a civilized White America against the violent black hordes. Bear that in mind before you try to hobble the police any further.

 

[Eriol]

This is a pretty good example of white privilege. Don't be offended, its the exact same line of thought I have. Do what the police say, everything will work out ok. But that's because, as white people, we have every expectation of fair treatment. This line of reasoning though can not be expected from a group that has a history of systematic abuses perpetrated on them by police. Which is hard, or really...impossible, for us to appreciate as whites. Which is why its such a good example of privilege.

TL; DR; BULLSHIT! Stop using the word privilege when you mean rights all should have, but only some do now.


Longer:

STILL BULLSHIT!

Calling anything that EVERYBODY should enjoy "privilege" just makes it all the more justified for somebody to try and take it away, or justify why they can complain to you about you having something. What you describe there is a PERFECT example of something that should exist for everybody but it doesn't. BUT IT SHOULD!!! That's NOT privilege! Apply this to MOST things that are using that buzzword today (discrimination on almost anything but merit) and you realize that those saying that whites/men/rich/you name it have a "privilege" when actually it's something everybody should have, then you're an idiot. An advantage yes, as that's an evaluation, not a judgment. But privilege is something some have, and others don't, and it's usually not justified. And thus lumping tons of things into it just make those who enjoy such things believe people are trying to take them away. Which they usually are. To give to themselves. So they're not looking to EXPAND what all people enjoy, but to take it from others.

Voting is a great example. Was it white & male privilege? No it wasn't. It was an advantage (or perhaps better phrased as a right) denied to others. Ultimately it was given to all, not taken from some, which is an example of good things happening.

Quick access to quick "justice" via lawyers is a rich advantage that they can afford. It shouldn't be that way, but be a service all should have access to. But we don't, because the "small guy" can get screwed and screwed and screwed because lawyers are too damned expensive. But cheap enough for the rich. Privilege? I'd rather affordable representation be for all.

You want real privilege, then celebrity is a good example. Not get thrown in prison for crimes when you should be. Or tonnes of other examples.


Here's an easy guide. If you say "I should be able to do that same thing!" then the group in question doesn't have privilege, it's something you're being denied unjustly. If you say "nobody should be able to have that!" then it's likely privilege.

 

[Emrys]

Was not surprised by the following comment:

HWSamson December 05, 2014 at 7:06 AM
The police are the first and final defense of a civilized White America against the violent black hordes. Bear that in mind before you try to hobble the police any further.

Charming.

 

[LittleSin]

TL; DR; BULLSHIT! Stop using the word privilege when you mean rights all should have, but only some do now.


Longer:

STILL BULLSHIT!

Calling anything that EVERYBODY should enjoy "privilege" just makes it all the more justified for somebody to try and take it away, or justify why they can complain to you about you having something. What you describe there is a PERFECT example of something that should exist for everybody but it doesn't. BUT IT SHOULD!!! That's NOT privilege! Apply this to MOST things that are using that buzzword today (discrimination on almost anything but merit) and you realize that those saying that whites/men/rich/you name it have a "privilege" when actually it's something everybody should have, then you're an idiot. An advantage yes, as that's an evaluation, not a judgment. But privilege is something some have, and others don't, and it's usually not justified. And thus lumping tons of things into it just make those who enjoy such things believe people are trying to take them away. Which they usually are. To give to themselves. So they're not looking to EXPAND what all people enjoy, but to take it from others.

Voting is a great example. Was it white & male privilege? No it wasn't. It was an advantage (or perhaps better phrased as a right) denied to others. Ultimately it was given to all, not taken from some, which is an example of good things happening.

Quick access to quick "justice" via lawyers is a rich advantage that they can afford. It shouldn't be that way, but be a service all should have access to. But we don't, because the "small guy" can get screwed and screwed and screwed because lawyers are too damned expensive. But cheap enough for the rich. Privilege? I'd rather affordable representation be for all.

You want real privilege, then celebrity is a good example. Not get thrown in prison for crimes when you should be. Or tonnes of other examples.


Here's an easy guide. If you say "I should be able to do that same thing!" then the group in question doesn't have privilege, it's something you're being denied unjustly. If you say "nobody should be able to have that!" then it's likely privilege.

While beautifully constructed, I get the feeling that this argument is over looking something important but I can't quite put into words what it may be.

Or I may be reacting strongly to something and seeing something that isn't there.

I hate when I can't tell if I'm being irrational or if there really is something wrong.

 

[PatrThom]

You might want to live in a society where the officers are not given the authority and power to carry out their duty. I don't, though.

This all sounds very logical.

--Patrick

 

[Bowielee]

The risk of death so ever present. Typically it's a small risk.

I'd say that running towards an officer who tells you to stop and already has his gun in his hands is a high risk of death.

I'd say that refusing to put your hands behind your back and accept being handcuffed when told to do these things is a small risk.

However, the risk is still there.

I expect that if, instead of ranting and raving about unfair treatment, Eric garner had chosen to accept being arrested and went willingly into custody that he would still be here, alive, today.

As a society we give police the power to enforce the laws, and to a lessor extent to interpret them in terms of how best to enforce them. As citizens we are breaking the law if we choose to disobey the instructions of an officer.

If we disobey, they have to arrest us. If we resist arrest, they have to use force.

If they use force, there's a small risk we may be injured.

This is not a police state. It isn't a choice between obeying and death. But by not obeying, we risk the small possibility of injury up to and including death.

The police aren't the ones to debate the law with. They are simply the enforcers. If you disagree with the law, you can attempt to reason with the officer, but once they've decided to cite or arrest you, the proper place to contend with the law is the court system.

There are corrupt officers, but the statistics show that they are rare, and those corrupt enough to kill someone in custody are so rare that there's more risk of you being injured or dying trying to resist than there is accepting the arrest and fighting for your rights in the proper venue before those who have the ability to judge the law.

The police aren't there to discuss or judge the law. They enforce it to the best of their ability.

And while the deaths of Eric and Michael and many others are terrible and tragic, they could have been prevented if they simply obeyed the instructions of the officer. They weren't killed for the crime of not having the proper tax license, or stealing from a store. Those are just poor decisions in a long series of bad choices that led to them choosing to disobey the lawful instructions of an officer.

You might want to live in a society where the officers are not given the authority and power to carry out their duty. I don't, though.

I'm sure this isn't what your intended point was with this post, but the takeaway kind of equates to: "sit down, shut up and accept your unfair treatment."

Civil disobedience is sometimes the only real way to affect change: see Rosa Parks and Mahatma Ghandi.

The issue is that to look at this in the context of race, we have to engage in quite a few counterfactuals. Had these men been white, would they have received the same treatment, etc...

At this point, it's hard to say one way or another, but it is omnipresent that black men in particular are singled out and profiled probably more than any other group.

 

[Null]

Except Eric Garner plainly said that the police had a history of harassing him, that they were charging him falsely (and considering the reasons they give for killing him and the reasons witnesses say they approached him are wildly different, that's not hard to believe), and then they killed him.

Here's the thing, though, Steinman. These police officers disobeyed their own departmental regulations and inflicted injuries that killed a man. What they did was directly what their rules of force say not to do - to constrict or compress the neck or throat area, impairing the ability to breathe. And they're not being punished for it, at all.

I don't see how you can not think that's a problem.

I don't see how you can think that when Grand Juries indict 99% of all cases, except for cases where police have killed someone, in which case between 2008 and 2012, they have indicted in 1 out of 81 cases, there isn't a problem.

When police constantly stop and question you and people like you for no apparent reason, because they can, that's a problem.

 

[LittleSin]

I'm sure this isn't what your intended point was with this post, but the takeaway kind of equates to: "sit down, shut up and accept your unfair treatment."

Civil disobedience is sometimes the only real way to affect change: see Rosa Parks and Mahatma Ghandi.

The issue is that to look at this in the context of race, we have to engage in quite a few counterfactuals. Had these men been white, would they have received the same treatment, etc...

At this point, it's hard to say one way or another, but it is omnipresent that black men in particular are singled out and profiled probably more than any other group.

Thank you.

This was rankling me but, again, I am rarely confident enough to put my thoughts into words when it comes to these things.

 

[AshburnerX]

You might want to live in a society where the officers are not given the authority and power to carry out their duty. I don't, though.

No. What I want to live in is a society where they use that power responsibly and fairly. But incidents like this simply show that isn't what we have.

 

[Terrik]

I'm sure this isn't what your intended point was with this post, but the takeaway kind of equates to: "sit down, shut up and accept your unfair treatment."

Civil disobedience is sometimes the only real way to affect change: see Rosa Parks and Mahatma Ghandi.

The issue is that to look at this in the context of race, we have to engage in quite a few counterfactuals. Had these men been white, would they have received the same treatment, etc...

At this point, it's hard to say one way or another, but it is omnipresent that black men in particular are singled out and profiled probably more than any other group.

I'm not quite sure how to put this in words, but I think focusing on race is detrimental to the discussion. I don't think the conversation should be "Police vs Blacks" where people can start pulling up facts and figures on black on black crime or whatever stat you want to use. I think the conversation should be able the status of the police force as a whole. If the police get out of control, it affects everyone, not just blacks. I think people are more likely to join in the discussion about management of the police force or demilitarization of the police force than they are willing to talk exclusively about a "that's racist" situation. I don't really know if I've made my point clear or not. I really don't know how to word it.

 

[Necronic]

So the argument is that it's not privelege for whites but instead disadvantage for minorities? That's absolutely true, but it's also entirely a matter of perspective. If you are a person being disadvantaged you see someone who is not similarly disadvantaged as being privileged. There's an argument for both sides, but one argument I really like is that enforcement capabilities are actually a zero sum game with limited resources, so if you disproportionately target minorities then you must therefore lessen your enforcement against whites. So actually there is both a disadvantage AND a privilege at play.[DOUBLEPOST=1417815131,1417814636][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'm not quite sure how to put this in words, but I think focusing on race is detrimental to the discussion. I don't think the conversation should be "Police vs Blacks" where people can start pulling up facts and figures on black on black crime or whatever stat you want to use. I think the conversation should be able the status of the police force as a whole. If the police get out of control, it affects everyone, not just blacks. I think people are more likely to join in the discussion about management of the police force or demilitarization of the police force than they are willing to talk exclusively about a "that's racist" situation. I don't really know if I've made my point clear or not. I really don't know how to word it.

I think this is also a very good point

 

[Necronic]

No one expects perfection. People make mistakes. But in the rest of the world people are punished for their mistakes.[DOUBLEPOST=1417817135,1417816920][/DOUBLEPOST]Like there's no other industry where this level of apologetics takes place. It's not like after the BP spill all these people were saying "oh hey nobody's perfect". Or after the BP explosion. Or the BP release. What people said was "Man BP is poorly run and needs to sort it's shit out", and it was punished, HARD.

 

[AshburnerX]

 

[Necronic]

God I remember when they ran those bullshit PR puff pieces. They are such a joke in the industry. We actually use them in our Business Practices seminars as examples of how you get fired.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I'm sure this isn't what your intended point was with this post, but the takeaway kind of equates to: "sit down, shut up and accept your unfair treatment."

Civil disobedience is sometimes the only real way to affect change: see Rosa Parks and Mahatma Ghandi.

The issue is that to look at this in the context of race, we have to engage in quite a few counterfactuals. Had these men been white, would they have received the same treatment, etc...

At this point, it's hard to say one way or another, but it is omnipresent that black men in particular are singled out and profiled probably more than any other group.

Rosa Parks and Mahatma Gandhi never resisted arrest. The fought for their rights after being arrested.

Had they been white, I have three close white friends that have been beaten senseless for resisting arrest. I have a black friend that had a gun pointed to his head for driving through the wrong neighborhood. When he showed his license to the cop and he realized that they were standing in his home's driveway... he apologized and let him walk inside.

Black (well really, poor) neighborhoods are patrolled and arrests made there, because there is so much crime going on.

 

[Null]

Then there's the hundreds of killings by police that aren't reported to the FBI (which tracks statistics on officer-involved shootings)...

http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-of-cop-killings-are-not-reported-to-fbi--study-finds-160958877.html

Hundreds of police killings are not included in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s records on the matter, according to a new report.


More than 550 homicides by police officers between 2007 and 2012 were missing from the federal statistics or not attributed to the law enforcement agency involved, the Wall Street Journal reported.
This makes it nearly impossible to figure out how many people cops kill — justifiably or not — every year.

 

[figmentPez]

As citizens we are breaking the law if we choose to disobey the instructions of an officer.

Not always. The authority of police offers have limits, and disobeying unlawful orders is not illegal.

If we disobey, they have to arrest us.

Again, no. Disobeying an officer does not necessarily have to result in arrest. It is at the officer's discretion.

This is not a police state.

It is a police state if we are expected to obey all orders from officers, even if those orders are unlawful and outside the bounds of what police officers should be able to demand.

The police aren't there to discuss or judge the law. They enforce it to the best of their ability.

It's legal to take pictures in public, however there are places that want to restrict that right illegally (the "bean" in Chigago, for instance). Is it your assertion that someone legally taking photographs should either stop their legal activity, or be arrested, should an officer attempt to stop them? Why are those the only two options? Why shouldn't a person be able to explain to the police that what they are doing is legal and there is no cause for their arrest?

 

[Hailey Knight]

Also, you should be aware that I'm sick and running a little low on oxygen these days, so don't take too much of what I say to heart.

#ICan'tBreathe

I'm not sure why you guys are arguing with someone who considers this a non-issue. Like trying to convert an agnostic.


It's Hyperbole Time!

I won't Godwin this, so what's another example of absolute obedience to authority ... well, I guess we know who would've turned Christ over to the Romans.

Let's look at some of the things that went on in Ferguson after Brown was killed:

- People told not to film the police.
- People told to disperse.
- People told to disperse while being unable to do so (blocked in by police vehicles).
- People told to keep walking.
- People told to stop walking.

And now these are all capital offenses. Yay! Anyone remember pre-Revolution America, the Boston Massacre? Well, we're bringing back the 1770s!

Supposedly one has the right to protest, right of press, right to refuse entry without a warrant, due process before execution, etc. Well, joke's on you morons, none of that matters.


Okay, I'm good now.

I don't act belligerent with police. And it isn't out of fear; police have just never given me a reason to act other than cooperative. I see the police and I feel safe. I wish everyone could have that, but depending on who you are, your ethnicity, your socio-economic level, and in some places even your sexuality--as has been said, police officers are human, and humans can't be perfect. Humans can also be malicious, and it's ignorant to think that people with malice don't see law enforcement as a career path, same as the people who do want to protect the public.

 

[PatrThom]

people can start pulling up facts and figures on black on black crime or whatever stat you want to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias[DOUBLEPOST=1417823155,1417822941][/DOUBLEPOST]

It's legal to take pictures in public, however there are places that want to restrict that right illegally (the "bean" in Chigago, for instance). Is it your assertion that someone legally taking photographs should either stop their legal activity, or be arrested, should an officer attempt to stop them? Why are those the only two options? Why shouldn't a person be able to explain to the police that what they are doing is legal and there is no cause for their arrest?

These are already a thing, for just such an occasion.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

These are already a thing, for just such an occasion.

--Patrick

I like this one.

 

[figmentPez]

These are already a thing, for just such an occasion.

Yeah, but apparently showing one of those to an officer is risking death!

 

[LittleSin]

Not really relevant at the moment but this kind of covers how I feel in these kinds of discussions.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Every soldier in the Boston Massacre went to trial in the colonies. Look it up. Two were convicted of manslaughter even. We're not going back to the Boston Massacre, we're already behind it.

 

[LittleSin]

Every soldier in the Boston Massacre went to trial in the colonies. Look it up. Two were convicted of manslaughter even. We're not going back to the Boston Massacre, we're already behind it.

It is worth mentioning that the two convicted received a punishment of a branding on their thumb instead of execution as was originally pushed for. History is a bit murky at this point but its generally believed they were allowed to continue being soldiers. It's also worth noting that 8 soldiers in total were arrested but the others were let go scot free.

...and, again, worth noting is the fact these cases only went to trial because the people protested and congregated.

 

[Officer_Charon]

All I ask is that everyone remember that there are at least three sides to every story. Side A, side B, and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Yes, bad cops exist. Yes, cops lacking in common sense exist. Yes, lazy cops exist.

But there are plenty of shitheads on the other side, too.

While I appreciate feedback from the other side to keep me honest, it feels a little bit like some of y'all are feeding off of each other and getting just a touch too hungry here.

But what do I know?