Ferguson, Mo

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 1:17 pm

Just to clarify, I do not have a position on the officer's guilt or innocence, aside from the reality that the process determined that he was justified in his action (or at the least, there was insufficient evidence that he wasn't justified).

My issue, to the extent that I have one is that I think that if you kill another human being (and in this case there is no doubt that he killed another human being), the process for determining whether it was a justified action or not should probably be more complicated than an uninterested prosecutor making his best effort to avoid an indictment.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:06 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Just to clarify, I do not have a position on the officer's guilt or innocence, aside from the reality that the process determined that he was justified in his action (or at the least, there was insufficient evidence that he wasn't justified).

My issue, to the extent that I have one is that I think that if you kill another human being (and in this case there is no doubt that he killed another human being), the process for determining whether it was a justified action or not should probably be more complicated than an uninterested prosecutor making his best effort to avoid an indictment.

Then where was your complaining about the thousands of cases where the process for determining it was justified didn't even amount to that? The only thing unusual about this case is that it went to the grand Jury at all. A vast majority of the time the prosecutor will just decide not to press charges based on his own feelings.

The actual travesty of this case is that the system let a bunch of protesters with little to no knowledge of the facts of the case compel them to send it to The Grand Jury with the unrealistic hope that doing so would appease their desire for mob justice. It worked out about as well as I expected.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:08 pm

I agree to an extent that a tragedy here is that it even got to a grand jury - but I'm not sure that we agree for the same reason.

I comment on the things in front of me. Not the infinite number of things not in front of me.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:19 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:I agree to an extent that a tragedy here is that it even got to a grand jury - but I'm not sure that we agree for the same reason.

I comment on the things in front of me. Not the infinite number of things not in front of me.

So are you saying, you agree it shouldn't have went to Grand jury. But once it did you feel the Prosecutor was obliged to pursue an in indictment with vigor?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:19 pm

I'm saying that I think there are times when cops kill citizens and they are given too much of a benefit of the doubt, and it never gets to a grand jury.

I think that the State has a greater obligation to defend its justification for shooting citizens in the streets than that. I think that the current climate has led to a situation where cops expect that any time they shoot and kill citizens that it is justified, and I think there are too many people who blindly go along with this and assume that if a cop pulled a trigger that it must have been necessary.

It's made worse when I see that some people's first reaction is *always* to attack the person that has been shot and kill to find a reason to make it acceptable that the police have shot and killed an unarmed. And I find that even when they end up being correct, it's completely by accident (not all cops that shoot and kill unarmed citizens are going to be guilty, so they will end up being correct).

The burden on the State should be higher than it is when they kill citizens.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:50 pm

I don't see where you get that. I don't know of anyone, anywhere around here (cops included) that think it is alright when they shoot an unarmed civilian.

It is done very rarely and when it is in err or a mistake it is typically criticized. For example the two women that were shot during the hunt for Dorner.

When a cop shoots someone who is innocent or who didn't pose any substantial threat I am right there with calling them out. This is not one of those cases, not even close.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:52 pm

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:10 pm

Speaking of the shooting of the two women in the Dorner case.

An internal LAPD investigation found eight officers violated policy last year when they shot at and hurt two women in Torrance during the Christopher Dorner manhunt. The cops mistook the women's truck for Dorner's.

The Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday adopted the recommendations and findings of the report.

Now it's up to L.A. police Chief Charlie Beck to decide how the officers will be disciplined. And the public may never know.

"State law prevents me from describing particular disciplines as is applied to each officer," Beck said during a news conference Tuesday afternoon. "I will say that discipline could be anywhere from extensive retraining up to termination."

The two women, Margie Carranza and her mother Emma Hernandez, were delivering newspapers when they were fired upon.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/02/04/419 ... 2-women-v/

So there is a case where two TOTALLY innocent people were shot and it is totally acknowledged that the officer violated protocol. So when could we expect their trials? Never is when, the most they faced was getting fired. Where were the protests and riots over that? Did I miss your outrage over how that was handled?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:00 pm

Do you think I have summoned outrage over how this was handled?

As for where I'm getting this? Long experience with certain elements of OO.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:16 pm

Rip wrote:

The stories behind the picture bear mentioning-

http://www.papertrail.co.nz/meet-devont ... big-heart/

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... ry_package

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat Nov 29, 2014 9:54 pm

Rip wrote:
So there is a case where two TOTALLY innocent people were shot and it is totally acknowledged that the officer violated protocol. So when could we expect their trials? Never is when, the most they faced was getting fired. Where were the protests and riots over that? Did I miss your outrage over how that was handled?

People tend to give up their rights willingly when they're scared. See everywhere post 9/11 or Boston during marathon bomber manhunt or greater DC during the Beltway Sniper attacks. And of course LA during Dorner. I guess people in Ferguson weren't scared enough to take it, and good for them.

Though I do recall a lot of fuss about the attack on the pickup truck in LA. Not riot level, but then police were looking for a cop killer. I don't think it would have ended well and that's probably what he wanted.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:07 pm

This is where we register our outrage, right?

CNN.com wrote: A grand jury decided against an indictment Wednesday in the death of Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, who died after white police officer Daniel Pantaleo put him in a chokehold, according to two law enforcement officials.

. . .

The cause of Garner's death was "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," the medical examiner's office has said. The death was ruled a homicide.

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:20 pm

Fretmute wrote:This is where we register our outrage, right?

CNN.com wrote: A grand jury decided against an indictment Wednesday in the death of Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, who died after white police officer Daniel Pantaleo put him in a chokehold, according to two law enforcement officials.

. . .

The cause of Garner's death was "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," the medical examiner's office has said. The death was ruled a homicide.

That is pretty outrageous. The whole thing is on video. I don't know how they could possible not indict.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:33 pm

I don't know what it'll take to get potential police abuse under control. The system is obviously not very good at investigating itself. It is patently absurd to have a ridiculously conflicted party (the DA's office) in charge of pursuing both the indictment or conduct the trial itself. In two very different cases, the police were invited to defend themselves in front of the Grand Jury. A courtesy that isn't extended to nearly anyone else. Setting up a parallel legal process for the police is only going to undermine public order in my opinion in the long run.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:45 pm

If it makes you feel any better, it is not unique to these cases. 538 has articles showing that police very rarely get indicted.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:08 pm

Well, at least we don't have to worry about putting body cams on police. Obviously having things on video doesn't make a ton of difference under the current system. Then again, this was just the one case. It'll probably be different the next time it happens.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:15 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Rather, it taught me that the adage that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich is an understatement.

Random Gawker Commenter wrote:Right? It seems like prosecutors are protecting the police officers in these cases. I always heard that "prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a sandwich." I guess unless that sandwich is a cop who killed a black person.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:28 pm

Fretmute wrote:
Mr. Fed wrote:Rather, it taught me that the adage that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich is an understatement.

Random Gawker Commenter wrote:Right? It seems like prosecutors are protecting the police officers in these cases. I always heard that "prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a sandwich." I guess unless that sandwich is a cop who killed a black person.

I don't think it has all that much to do with "a black person", it is hard to indict a police officer period.

I agree that in a number of cases this is a travesty and hope it changes. Just the Ferguson case was about as bad of an example to make the case as there is. This chock hold case looks to be a far better hill to fight that battle on, and I would bet there are numerous cases out there that would be even better.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:39 pm

OJ Simpson got off after killing two white people.

2 cops, one in ferguson and now today one in NYC, get off after killing 1 black person each.

I hate it, but life really does suck sometimes.

I remember how some black people cheered when OJ got off. I remember how some white people, alot of white people were shocked when he got off.

Fast forward to 2014, and these recent no charges against cops incidents.

I hate it that people died, I hate it that their families lost loved ones.

What I hate just as much is people that put themselves in situations that bring about
actions that lead to their own deaths.

In all of these incidents, OJ, and these 2 cop incidents the victims did stupid things that
lead to their own demise.

Don't grab a cops gun. Don't resist arrest from a cop.
Don't let OJ Simpson in your house.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:46 pm

I'm not sure that a premeditated stabbing makes a valid comparison to a self defense claim against a confirmed attacker. Even if Wilson was in the wrong (which I'm still very doubtful of), they just don't compare.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:13 pm

I am MSD levels of outraged over this. There was absolutely no reason for the escalation of force, Garner was not resisting, the cop used an illegal chokehold and killed him. Even the medical examiner said it was homicide.

Burning shit down may be the only way to make the powers that be notice that things are broken.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:37 pm

Let me preface this by saying I have 14 years of grappling experience regularly doing choke holds and strangles. There is no way in hell that the "choke hold" we see in the cnn video killed this man. I find it plausible that there were actions taken not shown in the video that could be construed as a choke hold that would have potentially lead to his death. Certainly the officer's kneeling on him and pressing his head to the concrete while cuffing him contributed. Given that he had asthma I'm more inclined to believe the arrest and all of the banging around that go with it, likely triggered an asthma attack and that eventually killed him.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:45 pm

gbasden wrote:I am MSD levels of outraged over this. There was absolutely no reason for the escalation of force, Garner was not resisting, the cop used an illegal chokehold and killed him. Even the medical examiner said it was homicide.

Burning shit down may be the only way to make the powers that be notice that things are broken.

A) The DoJ is launching an investigation.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said that he spoke with Attorney General Eric Holder, who pledged that the federal government would investigate the matter and that local U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch would oversee it.

B) The definition of homicide as defined for use by medical examiners is very broad.

Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’

i.e., someone did something to someone else that resulted in their death. It could have been as simple as causing them fear. There are only four choices on the menu: natural causes, accident, suicide, or homicide. Therefore, every time someone dies in an incident with police attempting to subdue them, the medical examiner writes "homicide" down on the sheet. It means nothing in any case regarding intent or culpability.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:44 pm

Arcanis wrote:Let me preface this by saying I have 14 years of grappling experience regularly doing choke holds and strangles. There is no way in hell that the "choke hold" we see in the cnn video killed this man. I find it plausible that there were actions taken not shown in the video that could be construed as a choke hold that would have potentially lead to his death. Certainly the officer's kneeling on him and pressing his head to the concrete while cuffing him contributed. Given that he had asthma I'm more inclined to believe the arrest and all of the banging around that go with it, likely triggered an asthma attack and that eventually killed him.

Fortunately those that performed the autopsy had more to go on than a CNN video.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:37 pm

I have mixed feelings on this one.

1. The choke hold is not allowed by police department policy

However:

2. The cops are shown discussing with him for some time in a very calm manner. Garner on the other hand is flailing his arms about -- clearly agitated.

3. When the cops become convinced that he's not going to calm down, they tell him they are going to have to take him in and he immediately becomes combative. He resists arrest. They don't draw weapons or even shock him with tasers.... they use a fairly standard practice of trying to physically overpower him to get him cuffed. This is the lowest option of forced compliance they have available. Less than mace. Less than tasers. Definitely less than a stick or a firearm.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:06 am

Alefroth wrote:
Arcanis wrote:Let me preface this by saying I have 14 years of grappling experience regularly doing choke holds and strangles. There is no way in hell that the "choke hold" we see in the cnn video killed this man. I find it plausible that there were actions taken not shown in the video that could be construed as a choke hold that would have potentially lead to his death. Certainly the officer's kneeling on him and pressing his head to the concrete while cuffing him contributed. Given that he had asthma I'm more inclined to believe the arrest and all of the banging around that go with it, likely triggered an asthma attack and that eventually killed him.
Fortunately those that performed the autopsy had more to go on than a CNN video.

How about this then. The coroner included the choke a CYA.
The only way someone dies from a choke minutes after it has been released is if you have collapsed the windpipe or broken the larynx each of which will cause asphyxiation due to the closing off of the trachea. It isn't physically possible from what we see in the video for the officer to have done so with the choke, he doesn't have the leverage to do so and the victim would have been unable to talk (as he does later stating he can't breath).

It appears to me the officer is trying to break Garner's posture and bring him to the ground, attempting to put his forearm across the collar bone area pulling the upper body back while trying to push the hips forward. This is an effective way to put a person on the ground with minimal force exerted and impact on them. So in all it looks like the cops are trying to resolve the situation with as little violence as possible, at least until the roll him to his stomach to cuff him. At that point I think they are being excessively forceful. Beyond that point they essentially ignore his need for medical care until the paramedics arrive, and by that time it was too late. I'm not sure if there is any level of culpability the officer was facing for the neglect of medical attention, and I would hope that was one of the things considered by the grand jury.

edit: I wanted to add that the cop really shouldn't have attempted that take down in any case. First he should have known it was going to violate procedure. Second he doesn't have the necessary skill level to do so safely and should have known that.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:24 am

You can draw whatever conclusions you want to from watching a video. If you think you've got it right and the ME has it wrong, so be it.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:32 am

Alefroth wrote:You can draw whatever conclusions you want to from watching a video. If you think you've got it right and the ME has it wrong, so be it.

More so I think its contribution to his death is being way over blown. It is what is headlining the story vs the fact that he was effectively crushed by the officers during his cuffing and the lack of medical attention.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:40 am

Arcanis wrote:
Alefroth wrote:You can draw whatever conclusions you want to from watching a video. If you think you've got it right and the ME has it wrong, so be it.
More so I think its contribution to his death is being way over blown. It is what is headlining the story vs the fact that he was effectively crushed by the officers during his cuffing and the lack of medical attention.

So you're saying all the officers were responsible for his death, not just the one who did the chokehold?

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:11 am

I don't think the violation that they were arresting him for was worth a shit. Big brother at its finest.

That being said, once they decide to arrest him he clearly starts resisting before they even lay a hand on him. What do people expect officers to do in that case? Ask him pretty please don't resist and come down with us? If people resist are they too back down?

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:12 am

msduncan wrote:I don't think the violation that they were arresting him for was worth a shit. Big brother at its finest.

That being said, once they decide to arrest him he clearly starts resisting before they even lay a hand on him. What do people expect officers to do in that case? Ask him pretty please don't resist and come down with us? If people resist are they too back down?

How many times would you need to be arrested on pointless charges until you say "enough is enough". Once, 10 times? 100? What is your personal line in the sand beyond which you will say "this is bullshit. I've been arrested N times on petty violations." ?

A question for everyone: What is your N?

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:16 am

msduncan wrote:I don't think the violation that they were arresting him for was worth a shit. Big brother at its finest.

That being said, once they decide to arrest him he clearly starts resisting before they even lay a hand on him. What do people expect officers to do in that case? Ask him pretty please don't resist and come down with us? If people resist are they too back down?

This is BS. He was trying to talk to the officers, he was not resisting in a violent manner until they decided to jump in and tackle him.

How about not show up with 10 guys so the situation doesn't escalate? How about just give him a ticket and let him show up in court? I haven't seen any explanation as to why he was being brought in at all. Was there evidence? That aside, how about not sneaking up and grabbing him from behind and tackling him when the situation didn't need it? How about getting off him when he is saying he can't breathe? At that point he's got one hand behind his back and one showing submission, yet there's 5 or 6 guys still just sitting on top of him. That anyone is defending this behavior is just sad.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:35 am

Teggy wrote:
msduncan wrote:I don't think the violation that they were arresting him for was worth a shit. Big brother at its finest.

That being said, once they decide to arrest him he clearly starts resisting before they even lay a hand on him. What do people expect officers to do in that case? Ask him pretty please don't resist and come down with us? If people resist are they too back down?
This is BS. He was trying to talk to the officers, he was not resisting in a violent manner until they decided to jump in and tackle him.

How about not show up with 10 guys so the situation doesn't escalate? How about just give him a ticket and let him show up in court? I haven't seen any explanation as to why he was being brought in at all. Was there evidence? That aside, how about not sneaking up and grabbing him from behind and tackling him when the situation didn't need it? How about getting off him when he is saying he can't breathe? At that point he's got one hand behind his back and one showing submission, yet there's 5 or 6 guys still just sitting on top of him. That anyone is defending this behavior is just sad.

Are you watching the same video I am? They reach to his hands to cuff him and he starts struggling. This is resisting arrest. Once they take a person down for resisting they stay on top of him until he is cuffed.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:42 am

msduncan wrote:I don't think the violation that they were arresting him for was worth a shit. Big brother at its finest.

That being said, once they decide to arrest him he clearly starts resisting before they even lay a hand on him. What do people expect officers to do in that case? Ask him pretty please don't resist and come down with us? If people resist are they too back down?

There are a number of ways to handle it, including de-escalating if it is deemed appropriate. Or backing down, in your words.

If you agree that arresting him for the violation is trumped up, it becomes harder to accept the idea that he should be in full compliance unless he wants to be manhandled (or in this case, die).

Shrug. It's a tough job. Mostly because of the constitution. I don't think Russian police have nearly this much difficulty.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:49 am

raydude wrote:
msduncan wrote:I don't think the violation that they were arresting him for was worth a shit. Big brother at its finest.

That being said, once they decide to arrest him he clearly starts resisting before they even lay a hand on him. What do people expect officers to do in that case? Ask him pretty please don't resist and come down with us? If people resist are they too back down?
How many times would you need to be arrested on pointless charges until you say "enough is enough". Once, 10 times? 100? What is your personal line in the sand beyond which you will say "this is bullshit. I've been arrested N times on petty violations." ?

A question for everyone: What is your N?

When I got to N, I stop doing what would lead to N+1. Stop violating the law, no matter how "petty" you think it might be. Not that any of this justifies what happened.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:51 am

GreenGoo wrote:If you agree that arresting him for the violation is trumped up, it becomes harder to accept the idea that he should be in full compliance unless he wants to be manhandled (or in this case, die).

No, you comply. The street is not the place to dispute your arrest, the place for that is in court. Trumped up or not, do not physically resist the police. That only leads to trouble.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:55 am

GreenGoo wrote:
msduncan wrote:I don't think the violation that they were arresting him for was worth a shit. Big brother at its finest.

That being said, once they decide to arrest him he clearly starts resisting before they even lay a hand on him. What do people expect officers to do in that case? Ask him pretty please don't resist and come down with us? If people resist are they too back down?
There are a number of ways to handle it, including de-escalating if it is deemed appropriate. Or backing down, in your words.

If you agree that arresting him for the violation is trumped up, it becomes harder to accept the idea that he should be in full compliance unless he wants to be manhandled (or in this case, die).

Shrug. It's a tough job. Mostly because of the constitution. I don't think Russian police have nearly this much difficulty.

That's why I'm torn. Should he have been arrested at all or ticketed? I don't know the history -- maybe they've ticketed him a bunch and he keeps doing it so it was time to take him downtown. Not sure about that side of it. Also I'm not sure the law that he was breaking is really a good one. Seems like a big brother we-want-all-the-revenue one to me. If it's bad law, that's a city council problem and not a police officer problem.

HOWEVER, even if the decision to cuff him and arrest him was the wrong judgement call -- the moment that decision was made, announced, and the action started to do it and he started resisting by pulling his arms away and getting even more agitated I think the officers didn't really do anything wrong other than the technique of the hold. They acted to subdue him. It took little more than 20 or 30 seconds to get him cuffed.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:59 am

It must have been a slow day with that many uniformed, plainclothes, and suits on hand to take down a ciggy smuggler.

IMO, they were OK to attempt to subdue him if they were trying to arrest him. But bad judgement calls were made in the takedown and the guy died unnecessarily. Criminal actions by the police? I'm not sure. Civil liability? Hell yes. The department will probably be paying out a shit-ton of money.

Incidentally, does anyone remember Kelly Thomas? Full acquittals IIRC. In what was bacially a face smashing.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:01 am

Grifman wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:If you agree that arresting him for the violation is trumped up, it becomes harder to accept the idea that he should be in full compliance unless he wants to be manhandled (or in this case, die).
No, you comply. The street is not the place to dispute your arrest, the place for that is in court. Trumped up or not, do not physically resist the police. That only leads to trouble.

That used to apply when it was just a white man talking to a black man. It no longer does.

I'm not saying I wouldn't comply. I would. But I'm not him. And I don't immediately condemn anyone for saying "hey, wait a minute, we're still talking, why are you grabbing at me?" while instinctually pulling away.

If I recall, a white guy complied, and ended up being video taped, humiliated and raped by a doctor under the cop's supervision.

Some peoples' breaking point is lower than others. It's hard to accept that a reasonable result is death even if you feel their actions are unwise.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:04 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Grifman wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:If you agree that arresting him for the violation is trumped up, it becomes harder to accept the idea that he should be in full compliance unless he wants to be manhandled (or in this case, die).
No, you comply. The street is not the place to dispute your arrest, the place for that is in court. Trumped up or not, do not physically resist the police. That only leads to trouble.
That used to apply when it was just a white man talking to a black man. It no longer does.

I'm not saying I wouldn't comply. I would. But I'm not him. And I don't immediately condemn anyone for saying "hey, wait a minute, we're still talking, why are you grabbing at me?".

If I recall, a white guy complied, and ended up being video taped, humiliated and raped by a doctor under the cop's supervision.

Some peoples' breaking point is lower than others. It's hard to blame them even if you feel their actions are unwise.

No. The law says you comply. This isn't a street discussion between two guys in disagreement. It's not a negotiation. You are under arrest and anything short of compliance is resisting arrest.