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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Sal was arrested 30 times?Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
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.
Congratulations America
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??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
He certainly had broken the law more than 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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban...s-from-police/
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50486
What Fuzzy and Aimless said.
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?What Fuzzy and Aimless said.
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?
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?
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Doesn't matter. He had something in his hand that could have been a weapon. By your own logic he deserved to die.
Congratulations America
Source
One of the tips in there is relevant to this thread.
Hope is the denial of reality
Merely one?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Well, the one about carrying a weapon.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sal didn't resist. Someone's perspective doesn't change reality. Garner resisted. That isn't based on perspective we actual video footage that exonerates the officers of any claim that Garner didn't resist.
No. He didn't steal and he wasn't violent. He surely didn't deserve to die.
Unless Garner stole things in the past I don't think he deserved to die either. The police were absolutely in the right to take him down after resisting and the death is an accident from that point. (Again note that didn't die via suffocation but through a heart attack that had a number of contributing factors). The lesson here is don't resist arrest and there won't be tragedy.
Sal had something they thought was a weapon. That IS resistance, according to the latitude you give anyone with a gun.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Lewk lost this debate.
But...since the CIA can "justify" the use of torture, it's no wonder that he keeps trying to justify excessive police force, or lethal force by civilians.
And the world is better off now that someone who could have been up to no good has been put down by the police.
I'm a bit shocked Lewkowski didn't open a happy thread about it.
Congratulations America
So am I. The man was an accused criminal after all.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm pretty sure I've said this before - perception doesn't change the facts.
Fact: Sal didn't resist. Officers may have perceived resistance but he did NOT in fact resist.
Fact: Garner resisted.
I have never stated that someone accused of a crime is automatically guilty. In fact haven't I posted numerous stories of homeowners who are up on charges for shooting criminals?
You're starting to sound a bit too liberal.
Congratulations America
That kid didn't steal either, nor does he have any record for stealing, hasn't stopped you from gloating. There are NEVER facts in the heat of the moment, Lewk. There are perceptions and reactions and you deciding AFTER the death whether you approve of those perceptions based on how well you like the person even though it has no bearing on the situation or how the cops or other people came to their decisions to kill others.
That's because it's not whether they're accused that makes them guilty, it's whether you think they're middle-aged, middle-class white people.I have never stated that someone accused of a crime is automatically guilty. In fact haven't I posted numerous stories of homeowners who are up on charges for shooting criminals?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Lewkowski you dumb uneducated twit, his heart ultimately stopped functioning due to the choking and the restriction of his chest and his chances of survival were directly influenced by the incompetent management by both police and EMTs. At least two experts have assessed the death as a homicide attributable primarily to asphyxiation (damaged windpipe, prone position with asshats on his back) while none have made a persuasive case for it being caused by an accidental primary myocardial infarction.
When the fuck are you going to give up your pathetic defense of criminal incompetence? why are you so interested in defending failure? If you'd spent half as much energy on educating yourself instead of finding excuses maybe you wouldn't... actually no nevermind, I suspect your fate was sealed a long time ago.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
