The sad fact is GETTING A TRIAL is just, the line being drawn here, not conviction or actual imprisonment/rehabilitation, etc.
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Perhaps we're seeing too many of the bad being protected by the good. Yeah, there are criminals out there who are dangerous, power hungry assholes. We just don't want them to be the ones with the badges, or worse protected by the good guys with badges.
I'm sorry we're making you uncomfortable, Officer_Charon, at least you still have Police One
Don't be an a-hole.
I'm sorry, was that post a touch too hungry?
While his tone was dickish, the meaning behind it was fine. I get a lot of stuff through LEO media channels. It's always nice to get a sense of where people closer to me think and feel.
And I can always count on Charlie to give me the extreme other end, just to calibrate where my "give a fuck" is supposed to be.
Thanks for being reasonable, though.
I know this will be thrown out as the dreaded "APPEAL TO EMOTION", but this post made me think of @stienman
http://www.peacebang.com/2014/12/04/the-intellectual-condescension-of-white-liberals/
http://www.peacebang.com/2014/12/04/the-intellectual-condescension-of-white-liberals/
All I got from that link is that the word "liberal" must mean something completely different to me than it does to that guy.
not a guy...
The issue with the 12-year-old is people asking why this happened; the shooter can be a racist and poor with a gun--they're not mutually exclusive.
The Police have the deck stacked in there favor. Pretty much everybody is looking at the last two grand juries, and especially the New York one, and we're all wondering "What the hell does it take to at least get cops in questionable deaths indicted?"
But as far as "But there are plenty of shitheads on the other side, too." , when we as the populous, empower you to be able to wield force over us 'in pursuit' of your duties, You THE POLICE, should be held to a higher standard.
That isn't anywhere close to what is happening, though.
So, in your opinion as a police officer, what act would justify sending a fellow officer to trial? Not necessarily convict, mind you - just actually send to trial.
All I got from that link is the idea that some people believe there is a deliberate culling of black people going on, perpetrated by white folks, and that same belief holds that the majority of these white people are ok with this and want it to continue.
Well, these people are of course entitled to their opinion.
Meanwhile, WalMart went and had itself an Aerostar/Duracell moment.
--Patrick
Well, these people are of course entitled to their opinion.
Meanwhile, WalMart went and had itself an Aerostar/Duracell moment.
--Patrick
Necronic
Staff member
So the Brooklyn shooting was pretty sad, but I feel it's very illustrative of a different type of culpability. Basically a rookie cop was going floor to floor in some pretty rough projects. Walking down an unlit stairway. Dude startled him and cop shot him. This one was a terrible accident that never should have happened, but I don't blame the cop for this. This was an administrative fuckup, pure and simple. That rookie should not have been doing that on his own. Standard procedure is for the rookie to be accompanied by a veteran when they do these things. In this case it was two rookies.
This one is really illustrative of an additional perspective that is hard to appreciate sometimes. Sometimes being a cop is straight up scary business. Walking through an unlit stairwell in a dangerous project is fucking scary. A veteran officer could probably handle the situation, but some guy who has only been on the force 1 year? That was basically setting it up to fail.
This was a departmental cockup pure and simple. Sometimes blame is complicated.
This one is really illustrative of an additional perspective that is hard to appreciate sometimes. Sometimes being a cop is straight up scary business. Walking through an unlit stairwell in a dangerous project is fucking scary. A veteran officer could probably handle the situation, but some guy who has only been on the force 1 year? That was basically setting it up to fail.
This was a departmental cockup pure and simple. Sometimes blame is complicated.
Some rookies go into the job thinking that they're going to be the shining light of justice that's going to clean up the city, and they know best. Without stopping to think that some SOPs are in place for very valid reasons. Like keeping officers safe from the boogeyman in the dark.
Some rookies have no business being officers, but fake the funk until their cowardice can't be hidden any more. I work with a couple on my shift, and I dread going to calls with them, because their nervousness makes situations escalate when they don't need to.
In the case of the Michigan shooting death of the 12 year old, I can think of 2 ways, procedurally, that those officers fucked up, badly. The dispatcher shares some of the blame on it, but even with that, there was no reason for that car to be that close to a potential gunman. The kid jumped because he was scared, snatched the toy out, and was shot by an officer twitchy from adrenaline. Criminal? No, but they are not going to expect ANY sort of protection from their department. They're done.
The rookie in Brooklyn? If he violated SOP (I don't know NYPD SOPs, either departmental or precinct for that area), then he's in a sling too. But again, not a criminal act. A jumpy rookie only.
The asphyxiation death of Eric Garner in New York looks like it initially started as a poorly-applied "seatbelt" takedown, restricted due to the larger size of Garner versus Officer Pantaleo. This sort of takedown is supposed to use hip leverage, with the fists of the officer meeting at the breastbone, holding each other in place while the officer torques their hip. When applied against someone larger, you're supposed to "break them down," buckling the knees or shifting backwards to pull them off-balance.
I'm going to say that if I was against someone with as much of a size difference there, I don't think I would have used that takedown.
As for the whole "I can't breathe" thing... do you know how many arrestees tell me that? In almost EVERY situation where I've had to tussle or chase a suspect, one of the first things they say is "I can't breathe." Almost every time. It DOES tend to inure one against similar complaints that might be more legitimate.
Some rookies have no business being officers, but fake the funk until their cowardice can't be hidden any more. I work with a couple on my shift, and I dread going to calls with them, because their nervousness makes situations escalate when they don't need to.
An act with criminal intent. Which is why they have grand jury hearings - to determine if there is enough evidence to show BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that there was an actual criminal act that occurred, outside of the scope of police powers.
In the case of the Michigan shooting death of the 12 year old, I can think of 2 ways, procedurally, that those officers fucked up, badly. The dispatcher shares some of the blame on it, but even with that, there was no reason for that car to be that close to a potential gunman. The kid jumped because he was scared, snatched the toy out, and was shot by an officer twitchy from adrenaline. Criminal? No, but they are not going to expect ANY sort of protection from their department. They're done.
The rookie in Brooklyn? If he violated SOP (I don't know NYPD SOPs, either departmental or precinct for that area), then he's in a sling too. But again, not a criminal act. A jumpy rookie only.
The asphyxiation death of Eric Garner in New York looks like it initially started as a poorly-applied "seatbelt" takedown, restricted due to the larger size of Garner versus Officer Pantaleo. This sort of takedown is supposed to use hip leverage, with the fists of the officer meeting at the breastbone, holding each other in place while the officer torques their hip. When applied against someone larger, you're supposed to "break them down," buckling the knees or shifting backwards to pull them off-balance.
I'm going to say that if I was against someone with as much of a size difference there, I don't think I would have used that takedown.
As for the whole "I can't breathe" thing... do you know how many arrestees tell me that? In almost EVERY situation where I've had to tussle or chase a suspect, one of the first things they say is "I can't breathe." Almost every time. It DOES tend to inure one against similar complaints that might be more legitimate.
you are just adorable, I could eat you all up
Dude. shut the fuck up. Seriously, I wish I could just fucking punch you in the face sometimes.
...and laugh as you called the police for help.
what sort of wild fantasy world to you live in when you think the Cleveland Police Department won't use 100% of its resources to protect a guy that blew a kid away in cold blood on camera?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...lice-brutality-in-the-cleveland-police-force/
that's a dirty liberal source, BUT here is the raw report:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...veland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf
Which reads like a horror story. I was going to copy-paste the part where an unarmed guy got shot in the chest during a traffic stop for not using a blinker at a red light (the cop reached into his car holding his gun, with his finger on the trigger, and it accidentally went off!), but there are just too many awful things to single one out.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...lice-brutality-in-the-cleveland-police-force/
that's a dirty liberal source, BUT here is the raw report:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...veland_division_of_police_findings_letter.pdf
Which reads like a horror story. I was going to copy-paste the part where an unarmed guy got shot in the chest during a traffic stop for not using a blinker at a red light (the cop reached into his car holding his gun, with his finger on the trigger, and it accidentally went off!), but there are just too many awful things to single one out.
That is where you and I disagree whole heartedly, and it explains why you feel the way you do in every situation which has come up that has garnered outrage here. To only state an officer should be brought to trial if it can be shown they committed at least 2nd degree murder may feel to an entire nation to be way too lenient on those we give the power to enforce the laws of the land.
Maybe consider why many of us here and so many communities have a problem with these cases and why we feel this is unacceptable.
When a police officer violates written rules of force use, standing orders, and standard practice, and it results in someone's death, that's not okay. Police departments are supposed to have policies and training to effect those policies, and when police wind up killing people by not following those policies, there needs to be a reaction bigger than, "Well, these things happen." The police have proven themselves to be a danger to members of the public.
To say that police who are only actively and intently committing crimes should face trial is completely unacceptable. That means that any misdeed can be claimed to be "a mistake" or "an accident" or "I felt threatened" and that be a reasonable defense. It means that police are largely above the law that they allegedly serve, instead of serving and protecting their community.
I believe that you're a good cop, O_C. But when you stick up for bad cops to this extent, you tarnish that reputation.
To say that police who are only actively and intently committing crimes should face trial is completely unacceptable. That means that any misdeed can be claimed to be "a mistake" or "an accident" or "I felt threatened" and that be a reasonable defense. It means that police are largely above the law that they allegedly serve, instead of serving and protecting their community.
I believe that you're a good cop, O_C. But when you stick up for bad cops to this extent, you tarnish that reputation.
Cajungal
Staff member
While I don't agree with OC's answer either, I think I can understand where @Officer_Charon is coming from. There are situations in which police officers are in the wrong and must accept responsibility for reckless, careless, or cruel behavior. I think OC's reasoning might come from the worry that, if it becomes really easy to punish police officers, they might be too scared to use appropriate force when it is actually needed to protect people. I don't think we're anywhere near that happening, but if that is what you're thinking (and please correct me if I'm wrong--don't want to put words in your mouth), I can understand someone in that profession feeling that way. I am terrible in an emergency and have none of the training that OC has. I can't imagine what it's like to assess a dangerous situation and then try to act as quickly as they have to.
We've seen so many horrible stories lately, and they break my heart. Part of me didn't want to post this because I don't like the way I waffle back and forth in my wishy-washy way. These situations make me angry and sad, and I get tired of hearing that not all cops are bad the same way I get tired of hearing that not all men are rapists. Both true, but those facts don't change what is happening now. It's a diversion. Even so, you're a person I've gotten to know, and I can't deny that, as a police officer who I believe works as hard as he can to do right by people, this is probably a difficult time for you as well. Everywhere you look you're seeing distrust and anger. I guess I'm posting this is because, no matter what I believe, (and for what it's worth) @Officer_Charon I want you to know that I can simultaneously feel outraged at something that I think is an injustice and tell my friend that I see him as a strong and good person at his core.
Anyway. Bluh. I'm no good at this.
We've seen so many horrible stories lately, and they break my heart. Part of me didn't want to post this because I don't like the way I waffle back and forth in my wishy-washy way. These situations make me angry and sad, and I get tired of hearing that not all cops are bad the same way I get tired of hearing that not all men are rapists. Both true, but those facts don't change what is happening now. It's a diversion. Even so, you're a person I've gotten to know, and I can't deny that, as a police officer who I believe works as hard as he can to do right by people, this is probably a difficult time for you as well. Everywhere you look you're seeing distrust and anger. I guess I'm posting this is because, no matter what I believe, (and for what it's worth) @Officer_Charon I want you to know that I can simultaneously feel outraged at something that I think is an injustice and tell my friend that I see him as a strong and good person at his core.
Anyway. Bluh. I'm no good at this.
Well-put imo
Beyond a shadow of a doubt is for full blown court hearings. Grand juries only require probable cause. If you can show me more recent info fine, but right now I gotta disagree with you O_C.
"beyond the shadow of a doubt" is for CONVICTION in a full blown trial. So, he's essentially saying they should only indict if there's already a conviction? If this is where the "good cops" are drawing the line, then lol
http://gawker.com/why-should-anyone-respect-the-law-1666634274
lol Gawker, but it's not a bad thought
http://gawker.com/why-should-anyone-respect-the-law-1666634274
lol Gawker, but it's not a bad thought
that's why it's an absurd victory that we're free to give cops the finger without being arrested for it
@mroosc1979 I mis-spoke. You are entirely correct.
@Null: I stick up for the officers that I feel are not guilty of criminal action. I will be the first one to decry criminal behavior by dirty officers - to include officers from my own department, including our former Chief - but it has to require a belief that something illegal has happened.
For many of us, there is an aversion to Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, because it's so very easy, especially in hindsight, to take time to figure out the best course of action that results in as few feathers being ruffled as possible. Sweet. Condense that thinking into the 5 seconds at best that you have during an incident, and tell me that you could do it too.
I do not and WILL not defend illegal actions. Please note that I never said I agreed with the grand jury verdict in New York - once it was clear that the takedown wasn't working, I would have shifted to something else. From an SOP standpoint, Officer Pantaleo is fucked.
But from a criminal standpoint, he did not deliberately attempt to kill Garner. He did not set out to throttle him to death. Garner died as a result of medical complications that resulted from him resisting arrest, and the use of force applied against him. Tragic, definitely. Avoidable? Probably - I don't know how the initial encounter went, because that's not what's on the tape, so it's possible that a different set of words or actions could have resulted in a more favorable outcome.
I'm stepping away from this discussion at this point, because I'm having trouble clearly articulating my thought processes, and I feel that I'm not really contributing much except to damage people's views of me. Anyone wishing to chat more about it is welcome to PM, IM, or otherwise contact me.
I like this community too much to have y'all turn on me because I can't articulate something I feel strongly about.
@Null: I stick up for the officers that I feel are not guilty of criminal action. I will be the first one to decry criminal behavior by dirty officers - to include officers from my own department, including our former Chief - but it has to require a belief that something illegal has happened.
For many of us, there is an aversion to Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, because it's so very easy, especially in hindsight, to take time to figure out the best course of action that results in as few feathers being ruffled as possible. Sweet. Condense that thinking into the 5 seconds at best that you have during an incident, and tell me that you could do it too.
I do not and WILL not defend illegal actions. Please note that I never said I agreed with the grand jury verdict in New York - once it was clear that the takedown wasn't working, I would have shifted to something else. From an SOP standpoint, Officer Pantaleo is fucked.
But from a criminal standpoint, he did not deliberately attempt to kill Garner. He did not set out to throttle him to death. Garner died as a result of medical complications that resulted from him resisting arrest, and the use of force applied against him. Tragic, definitely. Avoidable? Probably - I don't know how the initial encounter went, because that's not what's on the tape, so it's possible that a different set of words or actions could have resulted in a more favorable outcome.
I'm stepping away from this discussion at this point, because I'm having trouble clearly articulating my thought processes, and I feel that I'm not really contributing much except to damage people's views of me. Anyone wishing to chat more about it is welcome to PM, IM, or otherwise contact me.
I like this community too much to have y'all turn on me because I can't articulate something I feel strongly about.
I don't want the community to turn on you, and I don't think you're a howling monster. I just think you're a tool in an evil machine much larger than any of us. I wish there was a way to simultaneously tear down the "blue shield" without punishing so severely the individuals that are just... maybe this is too harsh a word... but are brainwashed into thinking anyone's life is forfeit if they break simple driving laws and look like a criminal.
I was going to post a long rant about how offensive this is, but let me just say how disgusted I am by it. Maybe if police weren't comparing the death of individuals which outrage communities as "Monday-Morning Quarterbacking" and comparing it to cheering on your favorite team, we wouldn't have to have this discussion.
Chokeholds are banned because they're considered excessive force and have resulted in fatalities in the past, resulting in major lawsuits.
The NYPD has a definition of a chokehold as ANY hold that restricts or compresses the airway. Whether or not it was a certain type of takedown gone wrong is irrelevant - ANY hold means ANY hold, and there is video footage of the officer holding his arm around Garner's neck until he dies.
Eric Garner died as a result of officers restricting and compressing his airway, though the officers on scene initially attempted to write it off as a heart attack (which they would not be liable for). This shows that they understood they had done something wrong.
When that officer decided to put his arm around Garners neck and hold it there until Garner stopped moving, he was intending to use excessive force, because THAT IS LITERALLY ONE OF THE GUIDELINES FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE.
Did he set out to kill Garner? I don't know - but the police officer in question certainly escalated the situation and knowingly used a technique he was expressly forbidden to use because it is too likely to result in death or serious injury.
Garner wasn't attacking the police. He wasn't trying to escape. His alleged crime was essentially a minor tax infraction. And yet somehow you say "Eh, killing him was probably kind of justified, or at least wasn't actively criminal enough to warrant a trial."
Between that and your support for Darren Wilson, I'm really disappointed in you.
The NYPD has a definition of a chokehold as ANY hold that restricts or compresses the airway. Whether or not it was a certain type of takedown gone wrong is irrelevant - ANY hold means ANY hold, and there is video footage of the officer holding his arm around Garner's neck until he dies.
Eric Garner died as a result of officers restricting and compressing his airway, though the officers on scene initially attempted to write it off as a heart attack (which they would not be liable for). This shows that they understood they had done something wrong.
When that officer decided to put his arm around Garners neck and hold it there until Garner stopped moving, he was intending to use excessive force, because THAT IS LITERALLY ONE OF THE GUIDELINES FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE.
Did he set out to kill Garner? I don't know - but the police officer in question certainly escalated the situation and knowingly used a technique he was expressly forbidden to use because it is too likely to result in death or serious injury.
Garner wasn't attacking the police. He wasn't trying to escape. His alleged crime was essentially a minor tax infraction. And yet somehow you say "Eh, killing him was probably kind of justified, or at least wasn't actively criminal enough to warrant a trial."
Between that and your support for Darren Wilson, I'm really disappointed in you.
Maybe he agrees with Rush Limbaugh and his team of experts that claim it's not a chokehold. Not to put words in his mouth, who knows. I just want to share this little slice of absurd heaven:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-eric-garner-was-not-choked-violation-of-the-truth-to-say-so/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-eric-garner-was-not-choked-violation-of-the-truth-to-say-so/
GasBandit
Staff member
As I see it, the fact that there is actually any reasonable room for debate as to whether the officers in question did in fact do something wrong means that the requirements for an indictment clearly are met. The investigation, the testimony, the evidence and the decision of innocence and guilt is supposed to come out in a trial - I'd have less problems if this had actually gone to trial and, after much presentation and deliberation, the policemen were cleared than I do with the concept that a grand jury watched the video of Garner dying and told a judge with a straight face they didn't see any need for a trial. It makes me think the grand jury was led to believe (or merely allowed to incorrectly believe) that an indictment is equivalent to a conviction. Which leads me to believe that something smells funny in the prosecutor's office. It's not about whether all cops are good or bad - there are good cops and there are bad cops. The problem is now it has been soundly demonstrated to all America that nothing at all can be done about bad cops. A policeman can negligently cause the death (at the very least, if not more) of a citizen on camera (and also arrest the cameraman despite it being entirely legal to videotape the police), and the prosecutor's office will see to it that the opinion of the state is "there's not even cause for a trial here - move along." That is beyond the pale.
I reiterate what I said in the civil forfeiture thread.
This is the sort of thing over which we started throwing tea into harbors 250 years ago.
I reiterate what I said in the civil forfeiture thread.
This is the sort of thing over which we started throwing tea into harbors 250 years ago.