Ferguson Riots

[NorthSideSox72]

In a cruel twist of fate... Four Denver PD cops were injured, one critically, while they were escorting and protecting Ferguson protestors in Denver today. SOME of whom were verbally berating the cops for being there. Conflicting reports on what caused it (driver may have had a medical issue), but a driver sped through an intersection and slammed into them, dragging one of them some distance before crashing into a parked car.

[ptatc]

So you agree he should've been indicted, which only means there is probable cause to charge him with SOMETHING

From what I've read, the grand jury was asked to give an indictment on criminal intent. I would agree with the grand jury that there was no criminal intent. I do disagree with the rule/policy that this is what needs to be proven.

 

I really don't think the officers were thretened in this case. There should be a civil on something like involuntary manslaughter or some type of causing accidental death.

[mr_genius]

Well looks like I was right about the Michael Brown case. He did attack the police officer. Awaiting for many of you to admit you were wrong.

[Milkman delivers]

The "black folks should join the police force" argument has a serious problem. Many of the people who are so upset with the police force, believe it or not, have no faith in the police or probably the criminal justice system. "Reform from within" only makes sense when the system you're in works.

 

I don't want to make a false equivalency, but any revolution makes sense to understand this thought process. Americans went to war with the British because they didn't feel that legal recourse had any chance of working. Confederates seceded because they felt the USA wouldn't let them keep their way of life. There are countless examples.

 

The sentiment behind things like the Gawker article is that for as long as American police have existed, they have not treated black people fairly. Certainly, there are countless times each day in which well-meaning police act fairly towards everyone. Those incidences obviously outnumber the one we're talking about in this thread. In many ways, the plight of black people has improved in the recent past. One of the best things to happen is that it is almost always socially undesirable to be racist. But we're left with implicit biases - all of us are - that we struggle to recognize and even if we do, most of us try to convince ourselves that they aren't there. Most people would agree that the officers involved in these cases are probably not virulent racists who were thinking, "this guy is black, let's get him!"

 

The allegation is that, unconsciously, their judgment of the people in question was influenced by their race. Michael Brown seemed more dangerous than he was because he was black. Tamir Rice's blackness made it more plausible that he was waving a real gun around. What is frustrating is the refusal by anyone to face their shortcomings. When we can't even get an indictment in these cases, many people see this as the police establishment saying, "no, this cannot possibly be fueled by a racial bias, even an unintentional one."

 

If you walked up to a young man or woman at work and asked them to make you some copies and came to find out that, oops, this person is your superior...what would you do? Always assume that other young people are your inferiors or realize that you might not be able to make these judgments based on heuristics like how old somebody looks? That's all people are asking for here ... except there has been a far longer time to learn. You know that bias your profession always seems to have? Maybe be a little more careful, or at least act like you've accepted the possibility that it's an ongoing problem.

 

At the very least, don't expect the group suffering at the hands of these biases to join the club as if that will fix things. It's a structural problem. We actually have research showing that, while less frequently/intense, even black folks have learned some biases against other black people. These things are pervasive. I like to think I'm a pretty thoughtful person, but I found myself referring to a female doctor as a nurse the other day. Why? Not because I'm evil, I don't think, but because I've been conditioned to assume that to be the case. We aren't perfect and never will be, but we'll only get better if we actively work towards fixing the problems rather than constantly confusing the victims and the perpetrators for one another.

 

While I agree with almost everything you said here, I have to ask about the bold part. Are you suggesting charges need to be filed against the officers who shot the 12-year-old? I'd have to disagree on that.

 

lol resisting arrest.

 

I haven't watched the video, but if he pulls away, he's resisting.

[StrangeSox]

The officers who shot the twelve year old rushed up to him like a couple of cowboys and killed him within two seconds. He was presenting a threat to absolutely nobody when they arrived. The Cleveland police department as a whole was castigated in a doj report today over just this sort of excessive force and needlessly putting themselves in situations where deadly force is the only choice they have. The cop who killed this child immediately after exiting his car was found to be incompetent by his previous department.

 

It's not hard to see why some people have such distrust of the police. What does a cop have to do for another cop to think they did something wrong? We have someone killed for "resisting arrest" by pulling his hand away and a twelve year old boy shot dead in two seconds by a couple of incompetent clowns and they're still getting excuses.

[ptatc]

The officers who shot the twelve year old rushed up to him like a couple of cowboys and killed him within two seconds. He was presenting a threat to absolutely nobody when they arrived. The Cleveland police department as a whole was castigated in a doj report today over just this sort of excessive force and needlessly putting themselves in situations where deadly force is the only choice they have. The cop who killed this child immediately after exiting his car was found to be incompetent by his previous department.

 

It's not hard to see why some people have such distrust of the police. What does a cop have to do for another cop to think they did something wrong? We have someone killed for "resisting arrest" by pulling his hand away and a twelve year old boy shot dead in two seconds by a couple of incompetent clowns and they're still getting excuses.

These are just the highly publisized "injustices" that show why people have ditrust the police. How many thousands of times everyday do the police do the correct thing that shows why people should trust the police.

[StrangeSox]

Putting injustice in scare quotes when we're talking about police getting away with murder doesn't exactly help your point.

 

The good ones defend the bad ones damn near every time.

[Milkman delivers]

The officers who shot the twelve year old rushed up to him like a couple of cowboys and killed him within two seconds. He was presenting a threat to absolutely nobody when they arrived. The Cleveland police department as a whole was castigated in a doj report today over just this sort of excessive force and needlessly putting themselves in situations where deadly force is the only choice they have. The cop who killed this child immediately after exiting his car was found to be incompetent by his previous department.

 

It's not hard to see why some people have such distrust of the police. What does a cop have to do for another cop to think they did something wrong? We have someone killed for "resisting arrest" by pulling his hand away and a twelve year old boy shot dead in two seconds by a couple of incompetent clowns and they're still getting excuses.

 

I'm not defending the choking thing at all. I'm just saying that pulling away is technically resisting. If some kind of charges were brought, I'd completely understand why. If he violated the department's general orders, he'll probably be fired (I think someone said he already is). And he'll almost certainly face a civil suit and pay. And the department more than likely won't indemnify him due to breaking department orders.

 

And if someone has a realistic gun in hand, or reaches for a realistic-looking gun, the cop is entirely justified in pulling the trigger.

 

Two separate and distinct situations, and a different view on both.

[ptatc]

Putting injustice in scare quotes when we're talking about police getting away with murder doesn't exactly help your point.

 

The good ones defend the bad ones damn near every time.

I'm not sure what scare quotes are. I meant them as some are questionable. I also diagree that the poluce are getting away with murder. Of these two prominent casss, one was self defense the other was accidental. Murder implies intent. I don't think the one in new york was intentional. I think the officers unvolved should be punished for excessive force but I don't think the intention was to kill the man.

[cabiness42]

From what I've read, the grand jury was asked to give an indictment on criminal intent. I would agree with the grand jury that there was no criminal intent. I do disagree with the rule/policy that this is what needs to be proven.

 

I really don't think the officers were thretened in this case. There should be a civil on something like involuntary manslaughter or some type of causing accidental death.

 

I agree with this. The officer did not need to harm the suspect due to self defense, so there should be some sort of criminal liability available whether there was intent or not.

[cabiness42]

If I were rating all three of these incidents on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the victim is fully liable, 10 being the police officer is fully liable, and 5 being the threshold at which charges should be brought, I would say:

 

Ferguson: 2

New York: 7

Cleveland: 8

[StrangeSox]

I'm not defending the choking thing at all. I'm just saying that pulling away is technically resisting. If some kind of charges were brought, I'd completely understand why. If he violated the department's general orders, he'll probably be fired (I think someone said he already is). And he'll almost certainly face a civil suit and pay. And the department more than likely won't indemnify him due to breaking department orders.

 

Understood, that was kind of a crappy, rushed phone post so sorry about the tone.

 

And if someone has a realistic gun in hand, or reaches for a realistic-looking gun, the cop is entirely justified in pulling the trigger.

I posted it in the Dem thread, but their actions are exactly the sort of thing the DoJ just blasted the Cleveland PD over. They've found that Cleveland PD officers routinely take unnecessary actions where they place themselves in a situation where the deployment of force, sometimes lethal, is their only option. These two clowns drove around a bunch of bollards just so they could pull up two feet away from the kid they thought had a real gun. Then they shoot him to death within two seconds. The gun was still in the kid's waistband when he was shot, so the fact that the orange tip was removed isn't even relevant. Then the police lied about what happened, claiming that they saw him in the gazebo with other people around and that they told him to put his hands up three times.

 

If they hadn't charged in like a bunch of cowboys for no reason, then the situation doesn't escalate rapidly and they aren't left with little choice but to kill a kid with a BB gun. It's similar to the shooting of the guy with a knife in Missouri a few months back. The police pulled up pretty damn close to the guy, leaving them little time to react and diffuse the situation without it turning deadly.

[farmteam]

I didn't say it excused it. I said that HE is the one that elevated the situation first by resisting arrest. He started a chain of events that had the eventual reality of him being dead. He could have prevented this by not resisting arrest. It also could have been prevented from somethign other than a choke hold, maybe a tazer, or how about a baton against the back of the knees? He opened the door to potentially bad things and bad things happened.

By saying this -- even if it follows a statement of what the officers could have done to also prevent Garner's death -- you're absolving the officers of everything once Garner "opens the door." You don't see the problem with that?

 

And how you can watch that video and think Garner "opened the door" at all is beyond me.

[EvilMonkey]

By saying this -- even if it follows a statement of what the officers could have done to also prevent Garner's death -- you're absolving the officers of everything once Garner "opens the door." You don't see the problem with that?

 

And how you can watch that video and think Garner "opened the door" at all is beyond me.

Do you deny that he was resisting arrest? That is opening the door for the police to escalate the situation. And no it doesn't absolve the police of responsibility. It just adds some of that back on him for resisting. Why can't both be at fault?

[bmags]

"escalate escalate escalate"

[Jenksismyhero]

If I were rating all three of these incidents on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the victim is fully liable, 10 being the police officer is fully liable, and 5 being the threshold at which charges should be brought, I would say:

 

Ferguson: 2

New York: 7

Cleveland: 8

 

I'd go 0, 2, 8. Ferguson he was completely justified. New York I don't think warrants a murder charge at all. I'm curious if an expert would say whether he would have died without the choke hold. Either way, the culpability is slightly more than Wilson.

 

The Cleveland situation I think deserves charges. As SS points out, the officers put themselves in that situation for no good reason, and the video looks like he jumped out of the car and shot the kid right away. There was no time to order the kid to drop the weapon and wait for a response. You might as well claim that in any situation where the assailant has a gun, if the cop jumps out in front of him and fires he's justified because he could have been shot at any moment.

 

edit: that's basically the "it's coming right for us!" south park shooting defense.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you deny that he was resisting arrest? That is opening the door for the police to escalate the situation. And no it doesn't absolve the police of responsibility. It just adds some of that back on him for resisting. Why can't both be at fault?

 

It was stupid of the cops to even be arresting the guy. There's your government chasing the almighty tax dollar.

[bmags]

I'd go 0, 2, 8. Ferguson he was completely justified. New York I don't think warrants a murder charge at all. I'm curious if an expert would say whether he would have died without the choke hold. Either way, the culpability is slightly more than Wilson.

 

The Cleveland situation I think deserves charges. As SS points out, the officers put themselves in that situation for no good reason, and the video looks like he jumped out of the car and shot the kid right away. There was no time to order the kid to drop the weapon and wait for a response. You might as well claim that in any situation where the assailant has a gun, if the cop jumps out in front of him and fires he's justified because he could have been shot at any moment.

 

edit: that's basically the "it's coming right for us!" south park shooting defense.

 

I just want to point out, that every time you have seen an actual video of a controversial shooting that sounded like it had justification, you have been surprised at how quickly and thoughtlessly the situation was "resolved".

[southsider2k5]

From what I've read, the grand jury was asked to give an indictment on criminal intent. I would agree with the grand jury that there was no criminal intent. I do disagree with the rule/policy that this is what needs to be proven.

 

I really don't think the officers were thretened in this case. There should be a civil on something like involuntary manslaughter or some type of causing accidental death.

 

This is the first time I have seen this. That makes a HUGE difference here. That is a whole different burden than what is being discussed.

[Milkman delivers]

Understood, that was kind of a crappy, rushed phone post so sorry about the tone.

 

 

I posted it in the Dem thread, but their actions are exactly the sort of thing the DoJ just blasted the Cleveland PD over. They've found that Cleveland PD officers routinely take unnecessary actions where they place themselves in a situation where the deployment of force, sometimes lethal, is their only option. These two clowns drove around a bunch of bollards just so they could pull up two feet away from the kid they thought had a real gun. Then they shoot him to death within two seconds. The gun was still in the kid's waistband when he was shot, so the fact that the orange tip was removed isn't even relevant. Then the police lied about what happened, claiming that they saw him in the gazebo with other people around and that they told him to put his hands up three times.

 

If they hadn't charged in like a bunch of cowboys for no reason, then the situation doesn't escalate rapidly and they aren't left with little choice but to kill a kid with a BB gun. It's similar to the shooting of the guy with a knife in Missouri a few months back. The police pulled up pretty damn close to the guy, leaving them little time to react and diffuse the situation without it turning deadly.

 

The original story I heard about Cleveland was that the kid reached for the gun in his waistband. I don't know if that's true, but that justifies deadly force.

 

And the Missouri knife thing, I discussed that a while back. That's about as textbook as it comes. And I'd venture to guess that was a suicide by cop.

[Jenksismyhero]

The original story I heard about Cleveland was that the kid reached for the gun in his waistband. I don't know if that's true, but that justifies deadly force.

 

And the Missouri knife thing, I discussed that a while back. That's about as textbook as it comes. And I'd venture to guess that was a suicide by cop.

 

Watch the video. The car pulls up 2 feet from the kid, the officer jumps out, shoots, then runs to hide behind the other side of the car. It all happened in about 2 seconds. Physically it would have been impossible for him to order the kid to put down the weapon or put his hands up, have the kid move in such a away as to create fear of imminent danger, and then the shot.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I just want to point out, that every time you have seen an actual video of a controversial shooting that sounded like it had justification, you have been surprised at how quickly and thoughtlessly the situation was "resolved".

 

Other than the Cleveland case, what other justified shootings have I seen video of? This is a rarity.

 

edit: You might be referring to the knife case. And I did think they acted a little too quickly for my liking, but they were still justified in shooting under the law.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

One thing worth pointing out...the initial officer's story in the Cleveland case completely does not match up with the video. They said afterwards that he was in the gazebo with several other people and was thus a threat to them - untrue. They said that they told him to get down and put his hands up 3 times - also untrue.

 

I point this out to reemphasize that people keep trusting the statement of the shooter because the other witness is dead.

 

Note that i didn't call these "lies", which IMO could imply that they're deliberate. I don't know that. But I wish people would remember this case where the officers statements are factually inaccurate when they take Officer Wilson's word months after the fact for what happened in that case.

[Jenksismyhero]

One thing worth pointing out...the initial officer's story in the Cleveland case completely does not match up with the video. They said afterwards that he was in the gazebo with several other people and was thus a threat to them - untrue. They said that they told him to get down and put his hands up 3 times - also untrue.

 

I point this out to reemphasize that people keep trusting the statement of the shooter because the other witness is dead.

 

Note that i didn't call these "lies", which IMO could imply that they're deliberate. I don't know that. But I wish people would remember this case where the officers statements are factually inaccurate when they take Officer Wilson's word months after the fact for what happened in that case.

 

Most reasonable people are going to understand that an officer is going to make self-serving statements. That's an obvious bias there. But when you add what he said with what other witnesses say, with the type of person Brown was 30 minutes before the shooting, etc., the picture is painted.

[Balta1701]

Most reasonable people are going to understand that an officer is going to make self-serving statements. That's an obvious bias there. But when you add what he said with what other witnesses say, with the type of person Brown was 30 minutes before the shooting, etc., the picture is painted.

What kind of person is the officer?