Are The Police Serving & Protecting Your Community?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

There are two points here that I'd like to make. First the very same argument could be made for the police officer - that he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, something that I've yet to see you recognize.

---

Well, police can't use "self-defense" or "stand your ground" the same way civilians do.

Quote:

---

The police officer was hospitalized after the incident. More importantly than that though, it's important to realize that there can, and are multiple standards here. There is the legal standard, which can have a much higher burden of proof to establish legal guilt, and public perception, which exists outside the legal framework and is informed by common sense. Both are important.

---

Sure, both legal standards and public perceptions matter as frameworks. That's why police withholding incident reports and initial autopsy reports can look "suspicious". And terminology is important in other ways, too. The officer was not "hospitalized" after the incident just because he had treatment at a hospital -- it's routine procedure to send cops to the nearest hospital after lethal events like this, and even keep them "overnight" for observation. That doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

---

You are also tilting at an enormous straw man here. Lewk hasn't once said that police officers should be able to execute anyone for any reason, he in fact has said the opposite in this thread. What Lewk is actually arguing is that the police should have the right to defend themselves.

---

Police have the right (and expectation) to defend themselves. But that's not what we're arguing about. What's at stake is whether or not a *professional* police can be trusted to use lethal force as a last resort.


And if we can't rely on police to act like *professionals*.....is it any surprise that guys like Lewk can't see the difference between shooting shoplifters or jaywalkers dead, or taking them into custody for the courts to sort out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Well, police can't use "self-defense" or "stand your ground" the same way civilians do.

---

Putting aside the veracity of what you said, what does that have to do with the police officer being innocent until proven guilty?

Quote:

---

Sure, both legal standards and public perceptions matter as frameworks. That's why police withholding incident reports and initial autopsy reports can look "suspicious". And terminology is important in other ways, too. The officer was not "hospitalized" after the incident just because he had treatment at a hospital -- it's routine procedure to send cops to the nearest hospital after lethal events like this, and even keep them "overnight" for observation. That doesn't prove anything.

---

The last reports that I've seen said that he was hospitalized with swelling to his face.

Quote:

---

Police have the right (and expectation) to defend themselves. But that's not what we're arguing about. What's at stake is whether or not a *professional* police can be trusted to use lethal force as a last resort.

And if we can't rely on police to act like *professionals*.....is it any surprise that guys like Lewk can't see the difference between shooting shoplifters or jaywalkers dead, or taking them into custody for the courts to sort out?

---

You clearly aren't arguing about the same thing. Lewk has not argued that shoplifters and jaywalkers should be summarily executed by the police, he has argued that if a police officer is attacked he/she should have a right to defend themselves. I don't think anyone has a full understanding of what happened on the ground, which should be important in determining whether or not this situation was handled appropriately.

I'll grant you that in many communities the police are not seen as peace officers, and professional conduct is not always a given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

btw, the kid isn't an "alleged victim", he IS a victim of police force, lethal at that. Either you believe we have an innocent until proven guilty in a court of law set of principles, which holds the police to a higher standard of decision-making and behavior than the average joe.....or you think cops can/should use their guns to act as judge and jury, without question or impunity. :rolleyes:

---

Actually I don't need the government to advise me of who I can think is guilty or not. Did OJ murder his ex-wife? Does the verdict that the court reached mean you think he was innocent? Please. I notice you never answered my question on Ken Lay.

Based on the evidence so far (police officer in good standing, the ridiclious notion an officer would just randomly execute someone in BROAD daylight - even if he was going to do it why do it this way, and the 'victim' being someone we know does thuggish things like violent rob people) I'm about 80-90% certain the police officer was attacked and defensed himself.

Do you ever need anything more than your sick imagination and your prejudices? :o

Saying that remarks about the victim's character are relevant and interesting in this situation is tantamount to missing the big picture entirely. Your police have an extremely shitty image and very little credit with the general public compared to what they need to have in order to properly accomplish their mission. That's the police's fault, not the public's. Fix it

I am white, and quite average looking. When I visited the USA I still had no inclination whatsoever to NOT see the police as one of the bigger risk factors during my visit. I would not trust the police in the USA any further than I could throw their patrol cars. I considered them armed and dangerous, under all circumstances.

And that was before they went beserk buying military gear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I am white, and quite average looking. When I visited the USA I still had no inclination whatsoever to NOT see the police as one of the bigger risk factors during my visit. I would not trust the police in the USA any further than I could throw their patrol cars. I considered them armed and dangerous, under all circumstances.

And that was before they went beserk buying military gear.

---

Hope you never get dropped in gangland, your opinion my change real quick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I am white, and quite average looking. When I visited the USA I still had no inclination whatsoever to NOT see the police as one of the bigger risk factors during my visit. I would not trust the police in the USA any further than I could throw their patrol cars. I considered them armed and dangerous, under all circumstances.

And that was before they went beserk buying military gear.

---

That's kinda crazy paranoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

That's kinda crazy paranoid.

---

That, or American Police has got a serious PR problem.

After the revelations about Hillsborough & Rotherham, I wouldn't be surprised to find the police pushing hard to cover up any transgression. Are the cops more honest in the USA? The instinct of organisations to protect themselves and their own is a hell of a barrier to justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Putting aside the veracity of what you said, what does that have to do with the police officer being innocent until proven guilty?

---

Veracity of what? Stand-your-ground laws were designed for civilians -- police have a different set of criteria (and professional training) that set a higher standard than 'shoot first, ask questions later'. Roaming public spaces while armed is part of their job, and shouldn't be compared to JQ Public defending their home/property. The cop can be presumed innocent of all sorts of criminal or civil violations, and he gets a benefit of doubt civilians wouldn't get because he's a cop....but the fact remains that he did shoot an unarmed pedestrian multiple times in broad daylight, on a busy street, which caused his death.

Quote:

---

The last reports that I've seen said that he was hospitalized with swelling to his face.

---

That was only 'reported' after the policeman's use of lethal force was challenged. :rolleyes: Sure, the cop may have been punched in the face....or maybe he put his firearm to face level and got a kick-back injury? That's what an open and thorough investigation is meant to sort out, and whether or not the cop used unnecessary force.

Quote:

---

You clearly aren't arguing about the same thing. Lewk has not argued that shoplifters and jaywalkers should be summarily executed by the police, he has argued that if a police officer is attacked he/she should have a right to defend themselves. I don't think anyone has a full understanding of what happened on the ground, which should be important in determining whether or not this situation was handled appropriately.

---

Granted, all the facts aren't known yet, but what we DO know is disturbing. :( I don't know about you, but I want any Community Police (who's fully armed, in a heavy duty car, with radio back-up) can act like a professional police when dealing with civilians and/or pedestrians....and can hold back/retreat rather than using their weapons first. But it requires a lot of training, drilling, and experience to control the human fight-or-flight fear response.

Quote:

---

I'll grant you that in many communities the police are not seen as peace officers, and professional conduct is not always a given.

---

Agreed. Part 2 of the OP was regarding "police militarization". I'm wondering if/why Police Departments have stopped seeing their role as community/peace officers, and taken a more military mindset? It can't just be because the DoD is giving military surplus to states, or that federal grants are being used to move that stuff into small towns. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Actually I don't need the government to advise me of who I can think is guilty or not. Did OJ murder his ex-wife? Does the verdict that the court reached mean you think he was innocent? Please. I notice you never answered my question on Ken Lay.

Based on the evidence so far (police officer in good standing, the ridiclious notion an officer would just randomly execute someone in BROAD daylight - even if he was going to do it why do it this way, and the 'victim' being someone we know does thuggish things like violent rob people) I'm about 80-90% certain the police officer was attacked and defensed himself.

---

OJ and Ken Lay aren't relevant. :donkey:

Okay, so there's a couple of guys walking down the middle of a busy street in broad daylight. A cop sees that and is concerned about public safety, so what should he do? How should he proceed? He's patrolling alone, and doesn't have a dash-cam, so it's obviously not a "high crime" area to begin with. So how/why did that event turn out so badly.....with a corpse laying in the street for hours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal

This guy is a victim. Doing something illegal that SHOULD NOT BE illegal. Gambling is state sanctioned and so to protect part of their quasi monopoly the government rabidly goes after people like Sal. This is something to get worked up over. The death of a thug who just robbed a store in broad daylight and then got into an altercation with police? No - not something getting worked up for. But I see no protests for Sal. I see no round the clock news coverage. Do you know why? Because Sal wasn't black.

---

Surely you support the police department looking after their own? :confused: They're just defending their colleague! Or maybe, just maybe, this shows that the vested interests you mentioned earlier prevents impartial investigation? Sure, you're probably going to say you said they should only have eachother's back "if they think you haven't done wrong", but I'd say the point is they are unable to decide that impartially. Plus, as shown in your link they tried to sue the county and the police chief for negligent training and implementing bad policies... which means that aside from investigating their colleague (which they already can't be impartial about), they'd also be potentially investigating themselves, giving a great incentive not to be impartial. Considering you explicitly stated you don't trust IRS statements about dodged taxes, because it's in their own interest, and said government studies can't be trusted, in general, you think it's wise to trust police forces (also government, after all) to investigate themselves?


BTW, I agree with you that that is a good example of unnecessary police force (SWAT team for a non-violent suspect..) gone wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Veracity of what? Stand-your-ground laws were designed for civilians -- police have a different set of criteria (and professional training) that set a higher standard than 'shoot first, ask questions later'. Roaming public spaces while armed is part of their job, and shouldn't be compared to JQ Public defending their home/property. The cop can be presumed innocent of all sorts of criminal or civil violations, and he gets a benefit of doubt civilians wouldn't get because he's a cop....but the fact remains that he did shoot an unarmed pedestrian multiple times in broad daylight, on a busy street, which caused his death.

---

There are several problems with what you've said here, not the least of which is your framing of stand your ground laws as allowing citizens to shoot first and ask questions later. I don't know the exact wording of each stand your ground statute, but I have never seen one written in such a way that permits someone to shoot without just cause. In fact, stand your ground laws are irrelevant to this discussion as police have never, (as far as I know - this may differ from state to state) been required to retreat when they are assaulted. What they are beholden to is a use of force continuum, and it's also true that there may be scenarios where the police decide to stand down for public safety concerns. I'm thinking specifically about high speed car chases in metropolitan areas. Now, the criteria in question, (as best I can tell from my reading of the relevant statute in Missouri, IANAL) aren't any less permissive than self defense laws, in fact they outline a much broader range of scenarios in which deadly force could be used.

Quote:

---

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or


(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

---

Particularly notable are (a) and (c), which, if the officer was telling the truth, would likely apply in this case. Assaulting an officer is a felony, and attempting to wrestle the gun away from the police officer indicates a willingness to endanger life/inflict serious physical injury. Again, IANAL, and there is some question about whether or not the police officer is telling the truth.

I think what I am trying to reconcile is your willingness to discount the facts regarding Michael Brown's strong arm robbery committed minutes before his death (a robbery that was caught on tape) and your insistence that he is innocent until proven guilty on the one hand, and your conviction that this police officer committed an unjustified execution without any corroborating evidence on the other. If you truly want to hold yourself to a belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that is fine, but why are you being so selective in how you apply it?

Bump.


Innocence until proven guilty, in a court of law....should apply to Police, as well as citizens. Do you think that principle is being applied equally?

The "police" can mean anything from a county sheriff to a federal agent, and any in-between agency. I'm interested in the conflicts, double standards, and hypocrisies.

Cliven Bundy was violating federal land law for several years....and was "allowed" to avoid prosecution because local police and militiamen took up his cause.

If you're a white guy, you can point a gun at the police and make them go away, huh? :rolleyes:

But if you're a dark-skinned male, you should be careful in all your actions, because you're presumed to be a threat. :sour:

I guess Lewk's pretty happy that menace Eric Garner's off the streets due to illegal actions by the police huh

On the bright side, the police is def. getting very good at finding suicides...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1...North-Carolina

(obviously not the only source on this story, just google the boy's name)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I guess Lewk's pretty happy that menace Eric Garner's off the streets due to illegal actions by the police huh

---

I'm curious as to what level of force you think the police should have used on someone resisting arrest. Liberals don't like batons and tazers - what exactly do they want police officers to do?

Note: I think the reason he was being arrested was retarded but once he started resisting they needed to put him down hard. That guy could have done quite some damage and clearly he was somewhat crazed for trying to resist arrest in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I'm curious as to what level of force you think the police should have used on someone resisting arrest. Liberals don't like batons and tazers - what exactly do they want police officers to do?

---

Conservatives and libertarians are concerned about police brutality and excessive force, too. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Note: I think the reason he was being arrested was retarded but once he started resisting they needed to put him down hard. That guy could have done quite some damage and clearly he was somewhat crazed for trying to resist arrest in the first place.

---

Yes, it's stupid to arrest people for low-level, non-violent, misdemeanor crimes (like selling loose cigarettes, or loitering). But that's how the "broken window" theory effects policy choices. It actually puts cops in a bad situation when someone "resists arrest" for stupid laws....and throws them into the next policy level of arresting for resisting arrest. :rolleyes:

No, Garner didn't need to be put down hard. He wasn't a threat to anyone, let alone the police, until they tried to physically restrain/handcuff him. They could have told him to "keep moving", or explained that a shop owner didn't like him loitering in front of his business (or taking away his cigarette-buying customers), and maintained a presence in the area, walking the "beat".

But that kind of Community Policing has been replaced with reactionary policies and responding to 311 calls....along with different treatment for certain ethnic groups. That Indian shop owner didn't have the same 'police protection' that's extended to wealthier (or whiter) communities, and he had no choice but call the cops for all sorts of mundane, misdemeanor behavior.

1) When police are called, they have a duty to respond. But that shouldn't mean they have an "expectation" to make arrests, or put people in hand-cuffs and take them to a holding cell pending adjudication.

2) If that standard was applied equally across the ethic/racial/income board, we'd not only have tons more white and/or wealthy people arrested...but that would overwhelm our criminal justice system.

Yes and in cases where they go after 'criminals' for gambling and then have SWAT shoot someone down in the street is unconscionable.

This is different.

This guy had been arrested thirty times. He resisted arrest with force. If someone is resisting arrest that is ALL the more reason to arrest them because they may be wanted on other charges, think they are getting busted for another crime or having illegal possessions on their person. As soon a police officer attempts to initiate an arrest and the suspect uses force to resist what is the proscribed method of enforcing compliance?

A gun? Liberals hate that.

A Tazer? Liberals hate that.

A take down with physical force (body slams, choke holds, tackles). Liberals hate that.

What EXACTLY do you want the police to do if a suspect resits arrest? Please be specific. Batons? Rubber bullets? Real bullets? Tazer? Pillows? Oh I know maybe whistles and just keep whistling until the suspect gets annoyed and lets himself get arrested.

Here's another example of great policing that liberals would probably scream at (omg the criminal could have cracked his head open and died... or omg that arm was around the guys neck!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0qesnTcsF0

For most Americans we enjoy the spectacle of criminals getting what they deserve.

NOW if you want to talk about the idiocy of laws against people selling homemade tobacco products I'm all ears but this wasn't the cops fault.

Most liberals are not as hard to please as you think Lewk. Don't mishandle weapons, lethal or nonlethal, like an untrained dumbass (i.e, don't act like you) and don't kill people who are not and do not pose an immediate threat to anyone elses' lives and most of the people, who aren't nutjobs anymore than someone like Rand or GE is, will be fairly satisfied. The ones who are nuts, like you, won't be but most people will, whether or not they're liberals. But those criteria are so very rarely met in the situations which get brought up on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Most liberals are not as hard to please as you think Lewk. Don't mishandle weapons, lethal or nonlethal, like an untrained dumbass (i.e, don't act like you) and don't kill people who are not and do not pose an immediate threat to anyone elses' lives and most of the people, who aren't nutjobs anymore than someone like Rand or GE is, will be fairly satisfied. The ones who are nuts, like you, won't be but most people will, whether or not they're liberals. But those criteria are so very rarely met in the situations which get brought up on here.

---

Large man resits arrest. Police officers move. Please describe in detail what the officer should do.

Use physical restraining force?

Use Taser?

Use gun?

Use baton?

What's the preferred solution?

If the large man died, with no hand on a weapon then someone screwed up in whatever force they attempted to apply. And lo and behold, that's exactly what the testimony indicated, improperly applied force, someone acting like an untrained dumbass, just the way you like 'em. What you don't get, Lewk, is that this is not different from Sal's death. They arise from the exact same issues with police behavior. You just like one of the victims because he was in the exact same social strata as you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

If the large man died, with no hand on a weapon then someone screwed up in whatever force they attempted to apply. And lo and behold, that's exactly what the testimony indicated, improperly applied force, someone acting like an untrained dumbass, just the way you like 'em. What you don't get, Lewk, is that this is not different from Sal's death. They arise from the exact same issues with police behavior. You just like one of the victims because he was in the exact same social strata as you.

---

Sal was arrested 30 times?

For some odd reason I think that there is no good reason why everyone who doesn't react like a happy puppy should be worked down to the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I'm curious as to what level of force you think the police should have used on someone resisting arrest. Liberals don't like batons and tazers - what exactly do they want police officers to do?

---

Jesus fucking Christ, this view is just so fucking dumb I don't know how you can express it without feeling crippling shame at your endorsement of mediocrity.

"Liberals" don't hate tasers, they hate the frequent and often dangerous misuse of tasers by extremely dumb cops. "Liberals" don't hate batons, they hate the excessive and unfair use of force by dumb and disgusting cops. I suspect many/most liberals in the US understand that cops in the US need to have guns, but they hate the way cops in the US often misuse their guns. Liberals don't even hate cops, they just hate incompetent assholes with badges who abuse their authority with disastrous results and then get free passes.

Here's a brilliant insight for you that you can have free of charge: when you use a dangerous and inappropriate move to take down an unarmed person that you're hassling for no good reason, together with 4-5 of your fellow assholes, and that man croaks that he can't breathe, that's the point where you stop doing the dumb shit you're doing that may end up killing the man. If you don't, and the man dies, maybe you're an asshole and an incompetent who doesn't deserve to be a cop.

Fucking hell Lewk. And then you have the nerve to rant about the incompetence of teachers, govt workers, school-children and fast-food workers. Do you have an incompetent cop in your family or something??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Sal was arrested 30 times?

---

He certainly had broken the law more than 30 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Sal was arrested 30 times?

---

The number of prior arrests has absolutely no bearing on the level of force used this time. It just serves to illustrate the guy was from a different social strata than you and Sal and hence not worth your concern or attention. Ultimately you have no beef at all with the police or what they do, to this guy OR Sal, the problem is Sal was like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

The number of prior arrests has absolutely no bearing on the level of force used this time. It just serves to illustrate the guy was from a different social strata than you and Sal and hence not worth your concern or attention. Ultimately you have no beef at all with the police or what they do, to this guy OR Sal, the problem is Sal was like you.

---

If Sal violently resisted arrest than force should have been used. They mistook a cell phone for a gun and fired. That's absolutely absurd considering Sal had no violent past to indicate he would be armed. Hell for a 'criminal' like that if you had MAILED HIM a summons he would have shown up and appeared in court.

Garner on the other hand...

Had been arrested multiple times
Violently resisted arrest
Was given a chance to come peacefully and refused to take it
Had the strength and power to cause damage
Died from a move that was not intended to kill - in fact *everyone* should be clear Garner did not die through asphyxiation - he died of a heart attack. While certainly the arrest contributed to it a reasonable person doesn't assume a choke hold applied for a brief amount of time will kill someone

The assumption that because Sal was in a different social strata I treat it differently is absurd. I treat it differently because the situation was DIFFERENT. If Sal had violently resisted arrest it would be different. If Sal was a career criminal with a history of assault then potentially SWAT would have been justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Jesus fucking Christ, this view is just so fucking dumb I don't know how you can express it without feeling crippling shame at your endorsement of mediocrity.

"Liberals" don't hate tasers, they hate the frequent and often dangerous misuse of tasers by extremely dumb cops. "Liberals" don't hate batons, they hate the excessive and unfair use of force by dumb and disgusting cops. I suspect many/most liberals in the US understand that cops in the US need to have guns, but they hate the way cops in the US often misuse their guns. Liberals don't even hate cops, they just hate incompetent assholes with badges who abuse their authority with disastrous results and then get free passes.

Here's a brilliant insight for you that you can have free of charge: when you use a dangerous and inappropriate move to take down an unarmed person that you're hassling for no good reason, together with 4-5 of your fellow assholes, and that man croaks that he can't breathe, that's the point where you stop doing the dumb shit you're doing that may end up killing the man. If you don't, and the man dies, maybe you're an asshole and an incompetent who doesn't deserve to be a cop.

Fucking hell Lewk. And then you have the nerve to rant about the incompetence of teachers, govt workers, school-children and fast-food workers. Do you have an incompetent cop in your family or something??

---

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban...s-from-police/

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50486

What Fuzzy and Aimless said. :up:

Lewk, do you think the police use the same profiling, "take-down" arrest tactics, or lethal force for....

the hundreds (thousands?) of high school or college students who engage in (and repeat) petty or misdemeanor crimes every damn weekend? How about the adults at sports stadiums who piss in the alley or get into fist fights? And what about prostitutes or their johns? They might resist arrest, too. How far should the police go to arrest them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

What Fuzzy and Aimless said. :up:

Lewk, do you think the police use the same profiling, "take-down" arrest tactics, or lethal force for....

the hundreds (thousands?) of high school or college students who engage in (and repeat) petty or misdemeanor crimes every damn weekend? How about the adults at sports stadiums who piss in the alley or get into fist fights? And what about prostitutes or their johns? They might resist arrest, too. How far should the police go to arrest them?

---

Regardless of the reason for the arrest if the person resists it they need to be taken down. Are you seriously suggesting that the police should just back off and not arrest someone because they start resisting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Regardless of the reason for the arrest if the person resists it they need to be taken down. Are you seriously suggesting that the police should just back off and not arrest someone because they start resisting?

---

I'm saying that "reason for arrest" does matter. And that taking someone into physical custody (with handcuffs etc.) should use a weighed and measured approach, where every incident is unique and relies on judgment -- not some knee-jerk reaction, or bravado, to prove police have power.


Your black & white view of the world has backed you into a corner, Lewk. You can't call yourself a conservative, libertarian, or constitutionalist (or whatever else) when you constantly give police a pass to use their power, even when they use brutality, or excessive, or lethal force that may NOT be justified, or legal.

But, if it's a federal agency (like Bureau of Land Management enforcing court judgments against law-breakers like Cliven Bundy), it's perfectly fine for civilian militiamen to point assault rifles at those police, until they stand down?

But wait, there's more! You give a pass to certain federal authorities (like the CIA or NSA or FBI) when they violate laws, if it's done for "national security" reasons? :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

If Sal violently resisted arrest than force should have been used. They mistook a cell phone for a gun and fired. That's absolutely absurd considering Sal had no violent past to indicate he would be armed. Hell for a 'criminal' like that if you had MAILED HIM a summons he would have shown up and appeared in court.

Garner on the other hand...

Had been arrested multiple times
Violently resisted arrest
Was given a chance to come peacefully and refused to take it
Had the strength and power to cause damage
Died from a move that was not intended to kill - in fact *everyone* should be clear Garner did not die through asphyxiation - he died of a heart attack. While certainly the arrest contributed to it a reasonable person doesn't assume a choke hold applied for a brief amount of time will kill someone

The assumption that because Sal was in a different social strata I treat it differently is absurd. I treat it differently because the situation was DIFFERENT. If Sal had violently resisted arrest it would be different. If Sal was a career criminal with a history of assault then potentially SWAT would have been justified.

---

The situation wasn't different. Police responded with more force than was necessary in both circumstances and they did so for the exactly same reasons: they have learned (not necessarily through training which usually does emphasize being careful when applying force, but from experience and exactly your kind of lax and permissive response) to use as much force as they can possibly excuse in any situation where they so much as speculate there could be any possible threat to themselves and not just threat of death but of any harm at all, even that of the "mild discomfort" level, and to always make that calculation as a snap judgement.

Sal DID resist arrest, as far as the police were concerned. He had something in his hand which meant he was an immediate threat to their lives. That calculation was no different than the one used for Garner. If you don't want Sal to happen, you need police to not do what they did with Garner as well because your claimed context doesn't matter at all, for the police they were the exact same type of situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

The situation wasn't different. Police responded with more force than was necessary in both circumstances and they did so for the exactly same reasons: they have learned (not necessarily through training which usually does emphasize being careful when applying force, but from experience and exactly your kind of lax and permissive response) to use as much force as they can possibly excuse in any situation where they so much as speculate there could be any possible threat to themselves and not just threat of death but of any harm at all, even that of the "mild discomfort" level, and to always make that calculation as a snap judgement.

Sal DID resist arrest, as far as the police were concerned. He had something in his hand which meant he was an immediate threat to their lives. That calculation was no different than the one used for Garner. If you don't want Sal to happen, you need police to not do what they did with Garner as well because your claimed context doesn't matter at all, for the police they were the exact same type of situation.

---

Your deliberately being obtuse. Sal didn't violently resist arrest. Garner did. There are a whole list of other factors I can add but no need to discuss it. That's all I need, Garner resisted, Sal did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Your deliberately being obtuse. Sal didn't violently resist arrest. Garner did. There are a whole list of other factors I can add but no need to discuss it. That's all I need, Garner resisted, Sal did not.

---

Sure he did. He was "armed", that's violent resistance to the cops there just as much (in fact more) than the ones who killed Garner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Sure he did. He was "armed", that's violent resistance to the cops there just as much (in fact more) than the ones who killed Garner.

---

Read the story again. He was *not* armed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Read the story again. He was *not* armed.

---

Sure he was. He had something in his hand which meant he was "armed" and as such potential threat to police which they immediately responded to with proper force. Same as Garner. They were incorrect in this estimation, the same as Garner, but they reached it with a snap judgement about how much threat the target posed to them, the same as Garner. Same type of training, same type of thought process, same type of risk assessment, everything you like about Garner applies to Sal even better. The "justice" Sal received is EXACTLY the kind you keep saying you want on here, the kind you keep praising every time it gets brought up as a problem with police by the media and other "librulz." The only difference is Sal was one of you. His death is what is wrought by your attitude. It was senseless, it was wrong, and it was just like all those deaths you post and crow about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Read the story again. He was *not* armed.

---

Doesn't matter. He had something in his hand that could have been a weapon. By your own logic he deserved to die.

Source

One of the tips in there is relevant to this thread. :o

Merely one?

Well, the one about carrying a weapon. :p