Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 160  Next

Too bad for him? I would say it is too bad for humanity. When an unarmed man (who never threw a punch or kick) can be choked to death by a government official for the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, well that is a pretty sad state of affairs for mankind. The officer used a banned chokehold, that is the part that you seem to be leaving out. The man said he could not breathe eleven times. The cop just kept applying pressure with no regard for the mans life. After Mr. Garner quits moving, the police just stand around. They make no effort to revive Mr. Garner what so ever. What happened to protect and serve?

   

You can call the chokehold whatever you want, the bottom line is that it's LEGAL.

The first "I can't breathe" came AFTER the hold was released so your claim is false. He wasn't choked after he said that nor was he being choked at the time.

Had the man complied, and not resisted arrest, he'd still be alive. It's easy for you to say what you would or wouldn't do....but put yourself in the shoes of the officer dealing with a 400lb man that's resisting arrest and try to be the hero.

He put himself in this situation. His actions, his life of criminal activity and his obesity problems caused his death. Period.

   

Because it doesn't matter. This was an issue of giving a ticket at most, you don't need to arrest someone to issue a ticket.

Also the fact you have left out is that the police were there due to a fight he broke up. The cops then started to harass him due to their past interactions with him.

In the video he expresses his desire to just be left alone.

He says don't touch me and brushes away the one officer behind him trying to grab him. At that point from the written report the police officers did not state he was under arrest, so that contract by the police was in fact battery and due to them being armed with pistols becomes a class A felony in New York. But that's besides the point.

The officer behind goes instantly for the banned choke hold and then tries to throw the man to the ground using his neck for leverage. This is a lethal attack by the police use of force wheel. Their is no justification at that time for a lethal take down.

You can watch the video as the police come to terms with what they did and then try to get ride of the person recording their attack.

The police wait 7 min before starting CPR after he becomes unresponsive. Would the police watch a fellow officer for 7 min before going to help? I doubt it.

Each officer that was part of the take down should be facing the proper level of manslaughter in New York state for their actions and inaction.

He didn't refuse arrest because he was never told he was being arrested.

This is why people should be armed. To keep the police civil.

   

The cops know this guy. He's been a criminal all his life. They know what he's doing because store owners are complaining. He's committing an illegal act. Its not harassment for the cops to engage on someone who's committing a criminal act and is a known criminal.

It doesn't matter if he asked to be left alone. Can I go commit a crime and then ask the cops to leave me alone? Not a chance. Can i break up a fight and then be immune to the law? Not a chance.

The video isn't complete. We don't see what happened before the tape started rolling. The grand jury saw all the tape and made the right decision.

Spare me the online outrage,

   

Here's a good one! Tasers a guy passed out in the back of a squad car 8 times in 1 minute; beats a guy on crutches and then a security guard who tried to help the guy on crutches . . and now gets promoted to Sargent!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.2859907

   

to me nothing beats a cop shooting a prisoner in the back of the head and successfully claiming self-defense. We're no different than the states - want the cops to get "them" and don't care much how they do it.

   

Yea, I still don't see how that was ruled self defence. Over open liquor at a hockey game too!

But that Sgt. is just a charter or criminal code violation waiting to happen. How can he even have a job, given he has a criminal record for off duty violence? Let alone a promotion.

   

There oughta be a law. Being a cop is tough, and I certainly give them some leeway for doing their job. But we do need to have action being taken when a cop really steps over the line. If they are convicted for it, for sure they should lose their jobs, but even if not, the internal discipline system needs to be improved, and again the most egregious need to be fired. Seems to me the dept is setting itself up for a major lawsuit when this guy steps over the line again. make the victim first nations, with our current reverence fro them, and the shit could really fly.

   

Vic Mackey lives

   

I find it doubly perplexing when one officer who was a former CF soldier in Afghanistan (and held the world record distance kill in combat), who it seemed had a very bad case of PTSD, got drunk and urinated on another cop and was fired outright.

Yet this guy pleads guilty to criminal assault on two civilians and gets a promotion! Nothing like applying the rules evenly.

   

If law enforcement is to become just another armed criminal gang (like they are in Brazil and many other countries) then law enforcement and those who enable them should not be surprised when people start treating every interaction with law enforcement as the potentially lethal and hazardous interaction it has become.

It should also be of no surprise when people band together (as in Brazil) into informal militia groups to protect their families and neighborhoods from roving bands of violent and unaccountable terrorists with badges.

   

Hardly surprising since majority of law enforcement in the US is made up of ex-military. Seems a requirement to get the job these days. Out of hundreds on any given shift in Pinellas County, there are only 2 or 3 on the job who have never served. Not hard to see what the "gang" thinks is normal.

   

Gotta do something with all those vets coming back from futile wars.

   

The ratio of veterans in a department varies wildly. Some departments, like you saw, are almost all veterans. Others, as is common in much of the midwest, may have none at all. The big cities these days tend to not have as many veterans because they favor AJ graduates from liberal colleges and those folks generally do not have military experience.

The agency I was a reservist with generally did not hire veterans who did not have a military police specialty. And it's a scant minority who had MP specialties.

The trend of the past twenty years is not favorable to military veterans getting hired as law enforcement. A diagnosis of PTSD in your jacket or a medical discharge anymore are a deal killer for applicants. This is part of why a lot of guys who need PTSD treatment are avoiding it is because they're being subjected to an effective persecution if they get a PTSD diagnosis.

My friend Chris, for instance, went to the VA at Travis AFB and they diagnosed him as PTSD. About a month later he got a letter from the US Department of Justice telling him he had to remove all of his firearms from his possession for the next five years. This is a dual punishment for Chris because shooting was his outlet for stress because it required him to get his Zen on. Now he drinks.

The more liberal cities tend to avoid veterans because we run Republican, conservative, and pro-gun rights where the politicians in those municipalities do not. It's usually the polar opposite with sheriff's departments where vets are welcomed.

IMHO it is also no coincidence that it's the agencies with fewer veterans who have the biggest problems with excessive force. The gearheads who love looking like soldiers and playing like soldiers don't have the discipline that goes along with it.

I have to go or I'd keep on writing on this.

   

It ranges wildly.

To date I'm unaware of any study or meta study into the records of police filtered by past military service or not.

   

Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 160  Next