The Ferguson non-indictment

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby GlassHouse » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:19 pm

I can’t say I’m surprised the Long Island Jury failed to bring an indictment in the death of Eric Garner, but I was hoping otherwise. Given that the chokehold was captured on video, nobody can claim the eyewitness testimony was ambiguous. The death was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner, the cause of death was choking, and we had a video of how it was done, and yet the grand jury couldn’t indict?

There’s no excuse for this. But I can’t say I’m surprised. It's undeniable that there are serious problems with the police in many of our major cities. Even cops on the news defending this most recent Grand Jury decision (not to indite in the Eric Garner case), have described the actions of NYC officers involved as gross incompetence at the least. Hard not to, considering that Garner was choked to death over time. This was not a heat of the moment, split second decision in a life threatening situation, as some have suggested the case of Mike Brown v Darren Wilson was. This took time and the suspect was subdued and surrounded by multiple officers.
But it's more than just incompetence that allows one person to choke another to death in the manner shown by the video of this incident. At best, it's a complete disregard for the life and rights of the person supposedly under the charge of these officers. An attitude that police are above the law (which the decisions of the grand juries have only added to). At worst it's what a lot of people have claimed - a war mentality against the citizens they're charged to protect - and at times, fuel by out and out racism.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Minardil » Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:16 pm

Here's the thing about Mr. Garner, the man who died while being choked by the police: Sure, he was a big guy, but he wasn't being arrested for a violent crime or a burglary or any sort of assault, he was being arrested for selling loose cigarettes in violation of the city's TAX CODE. In other words, he was a tax protester. If this guy had been white, dressed in camo, and selling loose bullets under a "Don't Tread on Me" flag, the Tea Party folks would be staging an armed revolution in his honor.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby The Heretic » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:37 pm

solicitr wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Here we go, the apologists for child murder are turning up.

Where? Who? I don't see any here.

Remember, you are talking to someone who thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was a rightwinger, that the FBI UCR and British Crime Survey are rightwing talking points and that the Constitution is supposed to limit the People not the State.
Last edited by The Heretic on Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby The Heretic » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:51 pm

Minardil wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Here we go, the apologists for child murder are turning up.


Of course. Well, BLACK child murder. If these shootings were happening in white suburbs at nearly the same rate, these folks would be marching on Washington. I mean, they threaten armed revolution over the expiration of a temporary 3% reduction in the top nominal income tax rate, for chrissake. And every time they try to post something refuting my assertion that they just don't care about these shootings, they end up saying something that proves my point about how they don't care about these shootings.

Minardil having been called out on his dishonesty (again) can't actually address that, he has to double down and try and divert any attention away from his dishonesty, by continuing to be dishonest (I wonder how long it will be before Mirardil starts in whinging that all he really wants is to have a conversation...).
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:30 am

I can understand a self-defense argument that the choke hold was necessary, even though it was banned. But that is not what we had. I do not understand the failure to indict, either.
There will be times when a police officer confronts a person who is much bigger and will not cooperate (Is anyone suggesting that an order from a police officer is a matter for debate? I hope not.) There need to be some techniques for compliance without deadly force.

I sympathize with people who do not want police officers to act like human beings. But--News Flash-- they are human. And there will be problems. If angels came down and took over all the police positions, there would still be controversy.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Jnyusa » Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:53 pm

I'm partial to economic explanations.

Who do you have to be to become a police officer?
• High school diploma or GED
• 21 years old
• valid driver's license
• no arrest record
• if ex-military, then honorably discharged
• 25 weeks of basic training
• 70% (C-) on a written test

These are not constitutional scholars. And what were they doing between the ages of 18 and 21, sweeping streets? Mowing lawns? Stocking shelves?

If you want to attract people who understand complicated notions of human rights, think critically and weigh options under stressful conditions, build community relations and grasp the principles of conflict resolution ... You have to set higher standards and PAY THEM MORE MONEY to attract better-qualified people.

That's the formula that is applied in every other business, for every other job. If we say to potential police officers, "You don't have to have a brain in your head, all you have to do is risk your life," rational behavior by a police officer will be to reduce risk to its lowest possible level so that the pay per unit of risk is as high as possible. That will, in almost all cases, come down to shooting first and thinking afterwards. If, on the other hand, we want people who think first, we have to select people who are trained to think critically and PAY THEM for that higher-level functioning.

Low IQ and low educational levels are positively correlated to racial prejudice, so if we are setting the bar as low as possible in order to attract people who will view the crummy pay for this job ($30-$50K) as better than their other options, we are going to select in favor of the least capable and most prejudiced members of our society.

And then the low pay also makes corruption inevitable. At median income in the US, your discretionary income is a big fat zero. Coal in the Christmas stocking. Another example of how our society makes the task impossible and then blames the individual for failing.

My take on the issue.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Minardil » Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:22 am

Is anyone suggesting that an order from a police officer is a matter for debate? I hope not


Of course not, but then, should refusal to obey an order from a police officer automatically result in the use of deadly force? We don't live in a police state, there should be some basic common sense used. In the Garver case, the police were the ones who introduced violence into an otherwise non-violent situation, and a man died because of it.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:42 am

I disagree that the police were the ones who introduced violence in the Garver case. The police wanted to arrest him (for what I have heard was the last in a multiple number of arrests for the same offense) and he refused. So, what then? Mr. Garver weighed twice what most of the police officers did. At that weight, TAZE-ing often has no effect. Baton use is also not likely to work--so. . . what? I personally think that if all the police there had "piled on," it would have worked without a choke hold, but, of course, piling on has its dangers, too.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby GlassHouse » Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:07 pm

I saw a post by someone commenting on this story at TPM (Talking Points Memo). She was a psychiatric nurse who had worked at some large psychiatric facility with patients who could be violent at times. Her point was that it was perfectly possible for the staff on the wards to put even a large patient into 4 point restraint without hurting the patient. (and yes, sometimes that's necessary). The key is to have enough people to overwhelm and control the patient. She also said that they avoided calling in the police until the very last resort, because when the police came, they wanted to "take charge" and always used more force than was necessary. It's a matter of a difference in training IMO.
Her post reminded me of when I was just out of high school and I worked at the New Hampshire State Hospital as a "Mental Health Worker" (an aid). I can attest to truth of what she wrote from personal experience - and it wasn't always big burly guys like you see in the movies handling violent patients. As the nurse also stated and as I can also verify, no one ever used a choke hold. It wasn't necessary and of course, they were forbidden anyway. I can remember only one time where we called the police in for a patient that we couldn't control and I don't remember them overreacting or using too much force - but that was a long time ago.
But I know for a fact that that many police officers could have gotten almost any suspect into restraints without choking them to death.
Last edited by GlassHouse on Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Minardil » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:07 pm

I disagree that the police were the ones who introduced violence in the Garver case. The police wanted to arrest him (for what I have heard was the last in a multiple number of arrests for the same offense) and he refused. So, what then? Mr. Garver weighed twice what most of the police officers did. At that weight, TAZE-ing often has no effect. Baton use is also not likely to work--so. . . what? I personally think that if all the police there had "piled on," it would have worked without a choke hold, but, of course, piling on has its dangers, too.


Having watched the video of Garver's death, I don't see where he becomes belligerent or violent? Refusing to be arrested is not the same as becoming violent or physical. He was angry, yes, but if we're going to now claim that simply stating a refusal to be arrested is the same as physically resisting arrest, I think we've set the bar extremely low here. And by this logic that resisting arrest automatically incurs violent action by law enforcement, Cliven Bundy and his band of heavily armed "patriots" should be nothing more than slightly greasy patches of Nevada desert right now. Why aren't they?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:21 pm

I think you missed the point of my post.

Refusing to be arrested is a separate crime, in most places, regardless of becoming violent.
What is a police officer supposed to do if someone "refuses to be arrested?' Does he/she say "Oh, well since you do not want to be arrested, I'll just go about my business and we'll forget it?"

Of Course not.

He has to take the person into custody regardless. Sometimes it is not the original arrest that goes wrong, but the struggle with the person who "Does not want to be arrested."
Sometimes there are ways to take the person into custody, without hurting him/her; sometimes not.

If someone says OK, I'll get arrested, he will seldom be hurt. If he makes a fight out of it, he will likely be hurt. If the arrest is wrong, there are ways to take care of that, later--brushing off the cops is NOT the way.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby solicitr » Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:58 pm

That's all well and good, Portia; but we are not talking about just physical force, but deadly force. The baton chokehold was outlawed precisely because it creates such a substantial risk of fatal consequences that it is now classed, properly, as deadly force.

Would you be arguing that it would have been justified to shoot him? Of course not.

-------------------------
he was being arrested for selling loose cigarettes in violation of the city's TAX CODE. In other words, he was a tax protester.


He could equally be viewed as a protester against NYC's draconian War on Tobacco. But that wouldn't work for you.....
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby solicitr » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:09 pm

Minardil wrote:
2) Nobody, open carry or not, has an "assault rifle" slung across his back, unless he's a cop or a soldier.


Such pointless hair-splitting. Okay, we get that according to some arcane definition of the phrase "assault rife" these "civilian" weapons are not, strictly speaking, "assault rifles". Which begs the question, why are the manufacturers and sellers of these weapons marketing them as "Assault Rifles".
So, as long as the folks selling these weapons call them "Assault Rifles", I'd say it's fair game for the rest of us to do the same.


Sure, keep on calling whales "fish," since "mammal" is an "arcane definition."

Tell me, would you have the same objection were they carrying these? Image

Functionally identical. You're freaking out over cosmetics.

The real point is: while I think it's shockingly bad manners to lug a rifle around a mall or restaurant, and that this accessorizing faux pas does nothing to help these folks' already dire fashion sense, that doesn't alter the fact that they're not hurting anyone.

Since this was brought up in a fit of whataboutery in the context of the Cleveland shooting- perhaps an element in that tragedy was the 911 caller- as well as the cops- getting into an unreasonable panic. Some people, it seems, react to the sight of a firearm in a public place in much the same way as some other people react to seeing a black person in a white neighborhood-
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Jnyusa » Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:27 pm

Regarding the definition of an assault weapon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Yes, it's only wikipedia but different states do have different definitions for legal purposes and the federal definition is different again.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Minardil » Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:53 am

Refusing to be arrested is a separate crime, in most places, regardless of becoming violent.
What is a police officer supposed to do if someone "refuses to be arrested?' Does he/she say "Oh, well since you do not want to be arrested, I'll just go about my business and we'll forget it?"


Well, when someone is refusing to be arrested for a minor non-violent crime like selling untaxed cigarettes on the street, I would suggest that what the police officer should NOT do is choke them to death.

Once, when I was in college, the State Constable came to my door to arrest me for the crime of unlawful possession of overdue library books. Seriously. I am not making this up. You see, I'd borrowed some books from the library, kept them a couple weeks over the due date, and then returned them through the night deposit box at the library, knowing that before the library would agree to lend me any future books, I'd have to pay the fine, which amounted to $2.80 (a nickel a day each for four books times 14 days). Well, at some point before I returned the books, the library reported them "stolen", and a few months later, LONG after I'd actually returned the books to the library, the Constable came to my house to enforce a warrant for my arrest. Now, when the Constable explained what my choices were to be arrested, or two pay him $150 in costs and fees, was, I told him that I know longer had the books, that I had turned them back into the library months earlier. At this point he took out a pen, and scratched off the $50 that represented the cost of the books, leaving only the $100 in fees for the privilege of having him come arrest me, and said that I now only owed him $100, or that he'd arrest me. I politely told him that he didn't understand, that I wasn't going to give him any money, and that I wasn't going to GO anywhere with him either. He said "Well, I'll put the cuffs on you right now", and I said "No, I don't think you will." This conversation went on for a while, and eventually the Constable left. The next day, I went to the library, confirmed that they had received the books, paid them the overdue fine, then took that receipt to the Justice of the Peace and arranged to pay off a portion of the court fees. And that was it. At no point during the encounter the previous night did the Constable - an officer of the court with full powers to use physical force to place me under arrest - threaten to choke me to death because I refused to be arrested. I would think that the officers attempting to arrest Mr. Garver might have followed a similar plan, that would have resulted in Mr. Garver getting the summons or whatever that his "criminal" activity deserved, but without the summary sidewalk execution.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Minardil » Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:29 am

Yes, it's only wikipedia but different states do have different definitions for legal purposes and the federal definition is different again


The argument over the term is just a silly attempt at diversion. The term "assault rifle" is in general use and the meaning of the term - that class of semi-automatic rifle with a distinctly military or paramilitary design to it (as opposed to a traditionally styled hunting rifle ) is well understood. When you say "assault rifle" everyone knows that type of weapon you're talking about, even people who hate the term.

If opponents of the term want us to call it something else, they should come up with a word and popularlize it so that it becomes standard, but no matter what you call it, it won't change what it is. I suppose we could call it a "Freedom Tube" or a "Super Happy Ballistic Fun Gun", but I don't think that will make much difference the next time some crazy guy walks into an elementary school with one.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Frelga » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:15 pm

I fail to see the point of discussing the nomenclature of assault rifles, when a child got shot for basically a toy gun.

And this guy almost got shot for pointing a banana at the cops. This is a true story, despite the fact that it took place in Fruitvale, Colorado, and that the names of officers were Bunch and Love. The guy in question looked white, which may or may not have had any influence on the outcome where Mr. Channing was arrested and charged with felony menacing instead of shot on the spot, although Deputy Love ( 8)) was reportedly about to draw his gun.

From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

"I immediately ducked in my patrol car and accelerated continuing northbound, fearing that it was a weapon," Bunch wrote in the affidavit, which lists [fellow deputy Donald] Love and him as victims. "Based on training and experience, I have seen handguns in many shapes and colors and perceived this to be a handgun."

According to Bunch, "Deputy Love stated that he was in fear of his life at this point and was in the process of pulling out his handgun when Nathan yelled, 'It's a banana!'"
Image
"You start running they'll never let you stop. You stand up, push back... Can't say no forever right?"
―Steve Rogers, Captain America: The First Avenger
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett

 
Posts: 9221
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Minardil » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:23 pm

Well if only Officer Love had taken this vital self defense class:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby solicitr » Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:20 pm

The term "assault rifle" is in general use and the meaning of the term - that class of semi-automatic rifle with a distinctly military or paramilitary design to it - is well understood


Wrong. The definition of "assault rifle" is a well-established technical term and has been so ever since it was first coined (as Ger. Sturmgewehr) in 1943. An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle capable of full-automatic or burst fire. You can no more have a semi-auto "assault rifle" than a whale with gills; the entire point of the assault rifle concept was to combine the accuracy of an infantry rifle with the automatic fire of a submachine gun.

The rest of your post is essentially a chestbeating challenge to the non-ignorant to create a new artificial term to combat an artificial term, the ignorance and confusion deliberately fostered by the gun-control movement when they coined the bogus term "assault weapon" -- which is just as nonsensical, if far more effective, as PETA's silly attempt to rename tuna "sea kittens." Essentially by "general use" and "well understood" you are just bragging about a highly successful campaign of deceit.

If you're going to use a technical term, use it properly.

While it's certainly not uncommon in discussing almost any vaguely technical subject, whether Tolkien or law or firearms, to discuss it with people who don't know much about it, on the whole they are generally happy to learn and have misconceptions corrected. But you belligerently take pride, apparently, in knowing nothing about firearms and stoutly persisting in that state, as if even the mere knowledge carries with it the Evil Gun Taint.

Again, would you be freaking out had these "clowns" been carrying traditional wooden-mounted semi-auto rifles with musket-style stocks? (I should point out that there is nothing particularly "military" about synthetic stocks, pistol grips or Picatinny rails: these are just the natural evolution of ergonomics).
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby solicitr » Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:58 pm

Frelga wrote:I fail to see the point of discussing the nomenclature of assault rifles, when a child got shot for basically a toy gun.




Quite right; I should never have taken the snarky bait in somebody's idle whatboutery post. The conversation, and it is an important one, is overhasty resort to deadly or potentially-deadly force by police, in situations which (at least on the surface) don't call for it.

We should also mention Akai Gurley, the 28-year-old Brooklynite who was fatally shot by a NYPD officer in a darkened stairwell. Whether it was, as the cop claims, a negligent discharge, or whether he opened up on a "suspicious shadow" in the dark, this officer should be strung up for taking a human life by violating 2 or 3 of the Four Commandments of Firearms Handling, without even a shred of justification.

On the other hand, we have to be mindful that just in the time since Michael Brown was shot, 14 cops in the US have been killed by suspects.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:41 am

Why was he put in a choke hold. I do not think that the police officer got up that morning and said "Gee, I need to put a choke hold on the first person I see."
The reason for the choke hold was more likely the size of the man to be arrested relative to the police man.The police man had, surely, been taught other methods but didn't use them. But that doesn't mean that there was no reason for the choke hold. I am sure that a choke hold would nearly always be better than a shot, but it was not the only option.

If someone who is twice your size decides to fight with you, what boundaries would you observe in the fight?
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Minardil » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:29 pm

If someone who is twice your size decides to fight with you, what boundaries would you observe in the fight?


Have you actually seen the tape of this man's death? At no point does he make any threatening or aggressive moves toward the GROUP of FIVE officers who had him surrounded, are you suggesting that the choke hold was necessary because he was twice as big as all five of them put together? And his "resistance" to arrest was essentially a verbal declaration that he was tired of being harassed. It was most certainly the POLICE who initiated the physical phase of the confrontation. They decided to fight HIM, not the other way around.

As for what boundaries one should observe, I believe that the boundaries had already been set by the NYPD, which had banned the use of choke holds. So, there's that. But also, the use of lethal force against a non-violent offender is never warranted, and given that Garner most certainly died, I can't see how you could argue that the force wasn't "lethal".
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:09 pm

What, exactly, is a non-violent offender?
Are you using the term as a way of describing what he is being arrested for?Or how he behaves when told he is being arrested?
Anything other than allowing himself to be handcuffed is resistance, and no amount of moving away and waiving one's arms and saying that he is being "harassed" and doesn't want to be arrested is anything but resistance.
I agree that the choke hold was not necessary, but overcoming the reluctance to be arrested was necessary. The major fault belongs to the person who, told that he is being arrested, argues, moves away, etc.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Frelga » Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:46 am

Dear Cleveland Police Patrolman Union,
This is not how you PR.

Cleveland Cop Union: Browns owe us apology for Andrew Hawkins' actions

The Cleveland Police Patrolman Union (CPPU) isn't happy with Browns wide receiver Andrew Hawkins after Hawkins decided to wear a shirt during player introductions on Sunday that said, "Justice for Tamir Rice - John Crawford."

In a statement to Cleveland WEWS-Channel 5, CPPU President Jeff Follmer demanded an apolgy from the Browns. Follmer also called Hawkins' actions pathetic.

"It's pretty pathetic when athletes think they know the law," Follmer said. "They should stick to what they know best on the field. The Cleveland Police protect and serve the Browns stadium and the Browns organization owes us an apology."

Hawkins was supporting the cause of Rice and Crawford, who were both recently killed by police in Ohio. Rice, 12, was shot on Nov. 22 in Cleveland after an officer saw him holding a toy gun near a park. Rice's death has been ruled a homicide.

Crawford, 22, was shot on Aug. 5 near Dayton after a 911 caller reported that he Crawford was holding a rifle inside of a Wal-Mart. Crawford actually had an air gun that he had removed from a shelf at the store.
Image
"You start running they'll never let you stop. You stand up, push back... Can't say no forever right?"
―Steve Rogers, Captain America: The First Avenger
User avatar
Frelga
GNU Terry Pratchett

 
Posts: 9221
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:05 pm
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Minardil » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:17 am

What, exactly, is a non-violent offender?
Are you using the term as a way of describing what he is being arrested for?Or how he behaves when told he is being arrested?
Anything other than allowing himself to be handcuffed is resistance, and no amount of moving away and waiving one's arms and saying that he is being "harassed" and doesn't want to be arrested is anything but resistance.
I agree that the choke hold was not necessary, but overcoming the reluctance to be arrested was necessary. The major fault belongs to the person who, told that he is being arrested, argues, moves away, etc


Yes, a "non-violent offender" is someone suspected of committing a non-violent crime. In this case, I also meant that Mr. Garner himself was non-violent in his "resistance" to being arrested. You see, there is a huge difference between someone who "resists arrest" by simply saying "hey, I don't want to be arrested", and someone who resists arrest by attacking the police. Garner made no threatening moves at all. I find it very disturbing that you would consider anything other than complete and immediate submission to be grounds for the immediate use of deadly force. And you once again ignore the point that the choke hold was not just "unnecessary" but also against the rules of the NYPD. The police should have found a way to "overcome the reluctance" by some method other than summary execution.

But since you seem to think that the police were perfectly justified in executing Mr. Garner for selling non-taxed cigarettes, what about this case, where the police used force against someone who wasn't doing anything illegal at all?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/subway-musician-arrest-_n_6017854.html

In this case, a man playing a guitar on the platform of a New York City Subway station was ordered by police to stop playing. The musician responded by saying that he had every legal right to keep playing and refused the comply with the police officer's order to stop. There then ensued a rather bizarre exchange where the musician and the cop discussed the relevant statute, and they took out a smart phone and the cop read aloud from the section of the MTA rules that specifically ALLOW for musical performances on subway platforms. The cop then grabbed the man several times before eventually slamming him against the wall and arrested him for RESISTING ARREST. It's all on film, you can watch the incident in the link I shared above, but my point is that according to your argument, since the musician didn't immediately submit to being arrested, the cop could have legally choked the man to death, which seems like a pretty harsh sentence for doing something that's not even illegal.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:05 pm

I am quite used to having my positions misrepresented because what I actually said does not fit with some people's arguments. No-one, as far as I can see has addressed what happens when someone who is doing something illegal refuses to be arrested. If something injurious happens, whose fault is it ? The person who refuses to be arrested or the Police?

If the person is injured, who caused it? The person who did not want to be arrested, or the police.
\
If you change my facts, they will be YOUR facts: not mine, and you will prove my point.

I wonder if the fact that so many of our young people are taught to argue, whine, and resist their parents has resulted in this tendendcy to do the same with police?
There re important differences between a parent and a police officer:
1.It is seldom only the police officer's preference to arrest. If it gets that far, he/she needs to follow through. There is no "Oh, to hell with it" involved.
2. There are plenty of ways an arestee can challenge the arrest, later.
3.Parents are seldom armed with TASERS, or firearms. If you make a parent angry, you might get grounded. If you make a police officer angry you could get" grounded," permanently.
Last edited by portia on Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:19 pm

I think we need to give some serious thought to the findings that the shooting of the 12 year old was "reasonable."

Questions that someone who thinks it was not, needs to answer:

1. Are you suggesting that 12 year old cannot point and shoot a gun to hurt some one? Where did you get that strange
idea ?
2.Are you suggesting that the gun he was holding was easily distinguished from a real gun? How? How long would an examination take?

The only part of the incident that bothers me is that the police shooting was so quick. It would have been better if at least one command to put down the gun had been issued.

AS I COMMEnted at the time, where were his parents when they allowed him to have such a realistic gun and where is their acccountability?
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:54 am

About the shooting in Chicago, video of which is just being released.

I do not see a threat, to the police. And since no-one else was around, I did not see any threat to anyone. It is not a good idea to let someone who is high on PCP wander around, but shooting, especially 16 times, was unnecessary.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:36 am

And the police, and prosecutors, knew this for 400 days, but didn't charge the officer with murder until a judge forced the public release of the video. I find that at least as disturbing as the shooting itself.
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner
 
Posts: 5554
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Re: The Ferguson non-indictment

Postby portia » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:22 am

Whether it took 400 days to decide, it took some time, and we do not have a statue of Limitations on Murder. No one else died in the interim; the accused was not on duty, and I am sure that it took a while to get other witnesses to talk.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests