FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

It could be a self-fulfilling prophecy where black suspects are harder to handle because white officers begin with that being the case in their minds and creating a tension that may not be there otherwise.

I very strongly suspect that in many of the troubling cases, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides of the equation. The cop is on heightened alert because it's a black guy. And the black guy is defensive/aggressive/something because he's scared/hates cops/thinks all cops are out to kill black people (take your pick). RainMaker is correct on one point here and those who aren't acknowledging it are being intellectually dishonest: Garner was resisting arrest.

But that brings me to the utterly annoying part of all of these discussions recently--the overly binary nature of most folks' arguments. People who want to vilify Wilson conveniently skip past the fact that it's very likely Brown initiated the physical confrontation that led to his death. People who want to vilify Brown conveniently skip past the fact that Wilson's response was very likely more than it needed to be. People who want to vilify the NY cops conveniently skip past the fact that there's video evidence that Garner resisted arrest. People who want to vilify Garner skip past the fact that an illegal tactic was used to take him down. I found it troubling in the Brown case that people chose to believe whatever notoriously-unreliable eyewitness testimony fit their chosen narrative and ignore whatever notoriously-unreliable eyewitness testimony conflicted with their chosen narrative. But in the Garner case, it's still holding true despite their being a video.

It's clear as a bell in that video that both parties were in the wrong. Period. And anyone who tries to argue otherwise may well be suspended, because arguing otherwise tells me that you're either just trolling or so thick-headed that not having you around will raise the level of discourse here. You have all been warned. I'm sick of the foolishness that I'm seeing from both sides of this discussion.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by whomario

5) And yes, this also corresponds with a much lower ratio of shots fired by criminals. Like said, this seems like an arms-race/a destructive spiral that is viral on both "sides" of the issue.
We have our fair share of controversy in regard to police brutality, but it involves bruises and the odd broken bone, not lethal force ...

The German police and the US police are not much different. German police are equally allowed to defend themselves from attack.

Tell me how this goes down in Germany.

A cop sees a 300lb tough guy citizen walking down the middle of the street. The tough guy becomes belligerent and forces the cop to remain in his car and starts punching him and grabbing for his gun through the window of the police car. Are you telling me that the German cop doesn't have the right to defend himself and eliminate that threat if neccessary? The robber was trying to take the cops gun for what? It was to shoot the cop.

I think the big difference is that in Germany, people have more respect for authority the police officer actually has and don't challenge that. In this case in America, Mike Brown couldn't give a fuck about the policeman, or his authority...he showed zero respect for the police's position or even his existence in Ferguson. That is typically a sign of a thug/criminal and believe me, America has plenty of those. In the 1990's, Bill Clinton was forced to add 100,000 new police officers because the cops were becoming severely outnumbered.

We can blame cops all day long (and we do!), but typically, they are just salaried employees of the state that receive very limited MMA training. Many of them are badass and can handle any situation, but not all. Ferguson is "small town America". It's got a small police force (50 employees) and there are plenty of opportunities for cops to be alone on the beat when they are confronted by criminal elements. Remember, this one started off 2 against 1 but one of the robbers had the sense to back down from the cop once the cop got the upper hand. That robber is still alive today.

[Sun Tzu]

Everything I've read makes it sound like the cop was 100% in the right. The amount of news coverage this thing has been getting is sick. I've said it time, time, and time again...this country is fucked.

[Jukeman]

I think most of you guys miss the point and miss it by a mile.

Good thing the majority are seeing the bigger picture. #crimingwhilewhite was trending all day yesterday. I encourage some of you to read the stories...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I very strongly suspect that in many of the troubling cases, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides of the equation. The cop is on heightened alert because it's a black guy. And the black guy is defensive/aggressive/something because he's scared/hates cops/thinks all cops are out to kill black people (take your pick). RainMaker is correct on one point here and those who aren't acknowledging it are being intellectually dishonest: Garner was resisting arrest.

But that brings me to the utterly annoying part of all of these discussions recently--the overly binary nature of most folks' arguments. People who want to vilify Wilson conveniently skip past the fact that it's very likely Brown initiated the physical confrontation that led to his death. People who want to vilify Brown conveniently skip past the fact that Wilson's response was very likely more than it needed to be. People who want to vilify the NY cops conveniently skip past the fact that there's video evidence that Garner resisted arrest. People who want to vilify Garner skip past the fact that an illegal tactic was used to take him down. I found it troubling in the Brown case that people chose to believe whatever notoriously-unreliable eyewitness testimony fit their chosen narrative and ignore whatever notoriously-unreliable eyewitness testimony conflicted with their chosen narrative. But in the Garner case, it's still holding true despite their being a video.

It's clear as a bell in that video that both parties were in the wrong. Period. And anyone who tries to argue otherwise may well be suspended, because arguing otherwise tells me that you're either just trolling or so thick-headed that not having you around will raise the level of discourse here. You have all been warned. I'm sick of the foolishness that I'm seeing from both sides of this discussion.

Totally agree that both sides share culpability - my issue (as I was coming here to say this morning) is that as whomario has said, there seems to be a rush to use of force by the police in instances where it's out of proportion to the situation.

I'd much rather see a cop step back from the situation and call for backup and keep the individual under visual surveilance and diffuse the situation that way as long as there is no immediate threat of harm to the public. If there's a threat of harm to the cop then he should remove himself from the situation and call for backup.

I really think that more than race (although it tends to get played out in race-based situations due to some of the stuff you mentioned Ben) it's about a "macho police" culture of guys who grew up watching Bruce Willis in Die Hard or whatever other movies, and in any situation they get into their first response is "draw my weapon" rather than "how can I diffuse the situation and serve & protect."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

It's clear as a bell in that video that both parties were in the wrong. Period. And anyone who tries to argue otherwise may well be suspended, because arguing otherwise tells me that you're either just trolling or so thick-headed that not having you around will raise the level of discourse here. You have all been warned. I'm sick of the foolishness that I'm seeing from both sides of this discussion.

So you're threatening to suspend people even if they haven't broken any rules and are being civil in their disagreement and stupidity?

I don't disagree that having those people not around would raise the level of discourse, but that's a pretty BS way of accomplishing that.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'd much rather see a cop step back from the situation and call for backup and keep the individual under visual surveilance and diffuse the situation that way as long as there is no immediate threat of harm to the public. If there's a threat of harm to the cop then he should remove himself from the situation and call for backup.

You live in fantasy land if you think that is possible.

How exactly can a cop "step back" and "remove himself" if he is being assaulted?

And how exactly can the cop know there is no immediate harm to the public? These situations escalate fast. Are you ok if the cop is keeping the thug under "visual surveillance" while waiting for backup and the criminal decides in an effort to escape they are going to shoot someone in the head and take their car, or carjack someone and run down a mom crossing the street with her kids? Do you think the criminal is going to wait for the backup to arrive?

That doesn't even cover the far broader implication that if a cop "stepped back" every time there was the potential for a situation to escalate they would have even less respect from these criminals that they already have, it would completely neuter any authority they had.

It just isn't a realistic expectation.

[JPhillips]

It's just like high speed chases. Most departments have greatly limited the circumstances under which a chase is appropriate. The same should be done for personal confrontations.

In Ferguson the officer should have let Brown run instead of firing ten rounds in a residential neighborhood. Brown could have been detained later when a larger presence would have minimized the threat to the general public.

In NY the cop that initiated the choke hold was in no danger and didn't need to escalate the situation. Talking more would have taken longer, but may have allowed the situation to defuse naturally. At worst it would have led to the same situation.

For the most part I don't think the problem is about racists looking to kill blacks. The problem is training towards physical confrontation and the othering of portions of society. When cops see their job as eliminating crime and they are permitted or encouraged to use force to achieve that goal, things like what we've seen are inevitable.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You live in fantasy land if you think that is possible.

How exactly can a cop "step back" and "remove himself" if he is being assaulted?

And how exactly can the cop know there is no immediate harm to the public? These situations escalate fast. Are you ok if the cop is keeping the thug under "visual surveillance" while waiting for backup and the criminal decides in an effort to escape they are going to shoot someone in the head and take their car, or carjack someone and run down a mom crossing the street with her kids? Do you think the criminal is going to wait for the backup to arrive?

That doesn't even cover the far broader implication that if a cop "stepped back" every time there was the potential for a situation to escalate they would have even less respect from these criminals that they already have, it would completely neuter any authority they had.

It just isn't a realistic expectation.

See JPhillips post. He covers this.

I may have painted somewhat of an unrealistic scenario since I'm on my first cup of tea for the day, but the point is sound - it's about training cops to not immediately default to armed confrontation.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And how exactly can the cop know there is no immediate harm to the public? These situations escalate fast. Are you ok if the cop is keeping the thug under "visual surveillance" while waiting for backup and the criminal decides in an effort to escape they are going to shoot someone in the head and take their car, or carjack someone and run down a mom crossing the street with her kids? Do you think the criminal is going to wait for the backup to arrive?

That doesn't even cover the far broader implication that if a cop "stepped back" every time there was the potential for a situation to escalate they would have even less respect from these criminals that they already have, it would completely neuter any authority they had.

It just isn't a realistic expectation.

+1

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

See JPhillips post. He covers this.

I may have painted somewhat of an unrealistic scenario since I'm on my first cup of tea for the day, but the point is sound - it's about training cops to not immediately default to armed confrontation.

The cop did not immediately default to armed conflict. The cop initially asked him to get out of the road. 90 seconds later Mike Brown is dead, fair enough, but the cop simply did not snipe him for no reason. That is completely unfair to suggest.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In Ferguson the officer should have let Brown run instead of firing ten rounds in a residential neighborhood. Brown could have been detained later when a larger presence would have minimized the threat to the general public.

And when Brown shoots someone in a Walmart parking lot and steals their car the same people will be screaming about how the cops let him get away.

IMO the best way to minimize a threat to the public is remove the threat from the public ASAP.

[Buccaneer]

The culture of violence is pervasive in many levels of society because we glorify and make excuses for it. We can attempt to punish/change laws/set up another govt 800 number but until there is a change of heart in turning away from violence and sin, situations like these will continue. There are many people that are working communities in trying make a positive difference on a personal level and they need our help and support. The culture of violence includes institutional violence as well as street violence, both come from the same sinful mindset.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So you're threatening to suspend people even if they haven't broken any rules and are being civil in their disagreement and stupidity?

I don't disagree that having those people not around would raise the level of discourse, but that's a pretty BS way of accomplishing that.

C'mon, man. You know "unpopular/left-winged opinions" are ripe pickings for a suspension. It's been that way for years.

Don't agree with the overwhelming conservative majority around here? Prepare to be boxed.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And when Brown shoots someone in a Walmart parking lot and steals their car the same people will be screaming about how the cops let him get away.

IMO the best way to minimize a threat to the public is remove the threat from the public ASAP.

Well under that logic why don't we execute anyone that breaks any law just in case they might kill someone at Wal-Mart later?

Everyone agrees that Wilson fired six shots that didn't hit Brown. He's damn lucky none of those caused harm to the numerous people living and working in that area.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The culture of violence is pervasive in many levels of society because we glorify and make excuses for it. We can attempt to punish/change laws/set up another govt 800 number but until there is a change of heart in turning away from violence and sin, situations like these will continue. There are many people that are working communities in trying make a positive difference on a personal level and they need our help and support. The culture of violence includes institutional violence as well as street violence, both come from the same sinful mindset.

How do you explain much lower levels of violence in Europe where the populace is generally less religious?

I'm all for an understanding of sin and a desire to live better lives, but I don't think we're helpless until that happens.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The cop did not immediately default to armed conflict. The cop initially asked him to get out of the road. 90 seconds later Mike Brown is dead, fair enough, but the cop simply did not snipe him for no reason. That is completely unfair to suggest.

I'm not talking specifically about Mike Brown anymore. Try to follow the conversation.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

It's clear as a bell in that video that both parties were in the wrong. Period. And anyone who tries to argue otherwise may well be suspended, because arguing otherwise tells me that you're either just trolling or so thick-headed that not having you around will raise the level of discourse here. You have all been warned. I'm sick of the foolishness that I'm seeing from both sides of this discussion.

I guess the question is: does the punishment (death) fit the crime (asking why I'm being detained and not immediately submitting)? People talk about slippery slopes and I think this definitely qualifies. You're creating a populace that is afraid of the police (maybe that's the goal). There is no recourse if someone is wrongly arrested and the prosecutors won't vigorously prosecute cases where cops are going overboard.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I guess the question is: does the punishment (death) fit the crime (asking why I'm being detained and not immediately submitting)? People talk about slippery slopes and I think this definitely qualifies. You're creating a populace that is afraid of the police (maybe that's the goal). There is no recourse if someone is wrongly arrested and the prosecutors won't vigorously prosecute cases where cops are going overboard.

This.

Cops shouldn't be acting as judge, jury, and executioner unless there is a clear and present danger to themselves or the public (by which I mean, in short - although I'm sure someone will come up with an exception and try to disprove my broader point with a single anecdote - a clearly armed man who ignores a verbal order to submit). Anything short of that they ought to face at least the realistic prospect of prosecution (which they currently don't).

[Arles]

This one is getting a lot of play in Phoenix today:

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Phoenix...284550301.html

The national story (from USA today) is this:

Unarmed black man killed by white Phoenix officer

PHOENIX — The facts surrounding Rumain Brisbon's death — the ones that could be agreed upon as of Wednesday evening — follow a narrative familiar to a nation still reeling from the racially charged police incidents in Ferguson, Mo., New York City and elsewhere.

In Phoenix on Tuesday evening, a white police officer who was feeling threatened used lethal force on an unarmed black man. The incident left the officer unharmed and Brisbon, 34, dead with two bullet wounds in his torso at a north Phoenix apartment complex.

Phoenix police quickly released a detailed account of the killing for the media on Wednesday morning in what officials said was an effort to promote transparency, especially in light of the unrest that has played out in Ferguson and New York City following the deaths of unarmed Black men at the hands of White officers. But portions of that account have already been challenged by some witnesses and community activists who say that the officer's use of force was excessive and that Brisbon's death was unwarranted.

Shortly before 6 p.m. on Tuesday, officers were in the area of Interstate 17 and Greenway Road for a burglary investigation when a resident of an apartment complex told them that men inside a black Cadillac SUV were engaged in a drug deal, said Sgt. Trent Crump, a Phoenix police spokesman.

Police checked the license plate that the tipster provided and found it was registered to a resident in the 15,400 block of North 25th Avenue, where there was also a pending report of a "loud music disturbance."

The loud-music call was canceled, so the officer went to the SUV to ask questions of those inside, Crump said.

The officer said the driver, later identified as Brisbon, got out and appeared to be removing something from the rear of the SUV. The officer told Brisbon to show his hands, but Brisbon stuffed his hands into his waistband, Crump said.

The officer drew his weapon and Brisbon ran toward nearby apartments, Crump said. A short foot chase ensued.

"Witnesses indicated to us that the suspect was verbally challenging to the officer," Crump said.

Brisbon refused to comply with the officer's commands to get on the ground, and the two struggled once the officer caught up with him, Crump said.

"During the struggle, Brisbon put his left hand in his pocket and the officer grabbed onto the suspect's hand, while repeatedly telling the suspect to keep his hand in his pocket," he said. "The officer believed he felt the handle of a gun while holding the suspect's hand in his pocket."

The item in Brisbon's pocket turned out to be a bottle of oxycodone pills, he said.

A woman inside an apartment opened a door at that moment, and the officer and Brisbon tumbled inside, Crump said. Two children, ages 9 and 2, were in a back bedroom, he said.

Martin Rangel lives upstairs from where the shooting occurred and said he heard some banging and then a gunshot.

"It was so loud, I heard the vibration through the floor," Rangel said. "I ran to the window, and that's when I saw the cop running out, or like, walking out, and he was cussing, you know, he was screaming, 'F--k, f--k,' like upset that he shot the guy."

Brandon Dickerson, who said he was in the car with Brisbon shortly before the shooting and witnessed some of the incident, said Brisbon was dropping off fast food to his children in the apartment. On Wednesday evening, strewn french fries still littered the front porch.

Dickerson said he never saw the officer try to talk with Brisbon. He also said his friend wasn't yelling at the officer.

"Who's gonna argue with police?" Dickerson said. "He had no death wish yesterday."

Marci Kratter, a Phoenix attorney who represented Brisbon in a previous DUI case and is now representing his family, said she is concerned that the story offered by police is not complete.

"There are numerous witnesses that will challenge the police officer's account of what transpired," she said.

Kratter said she dispatched investigators to the scene to determine whether a civil wrongful-death suit is necessary.

"Tonight, four children are missing their father, a woman is missing her husband and a mother is missing her son," she said. "It was a senseless tragedy. He was unarmed and not a threat to anyone. We intend to pursue this to the full extent of the law."

Civil rights activist Jarrett Maupin was at the scene Wednesday and said he spoke with Brisbon's family members.

"I think the statements given to me by neighbors, friends and family members are in direct contrast to what has been disseminated by the Phoenix Police Department," he said.

Here's the local story from above with a little less sensationalism:

Phoenix police officer shoots, kills suspected drug dealer

PHOENIX -- A Phoenix police officer shot and killed a suspected drug dealer during a struggle Tuesday evening.

It happened shortly before 6 p.m. near 25th Avenue and Greenway Road after police received a 911 call reporting that a man appeared to be selling drugs out of a black Cadillac SUV at a 7-Eleven.

An officer in the area was provided with a license plate number of the SUV and a description of the male suspect. He found the vehicle in the parking lot of the apartment complex where the registered owner lived. A second witness at the apartment complex told the officer about drug sales involving the vehicle.

The driver, later identified as Rumain Brisbon, 34, got out of the vehicle and appeared to remove something from the back seat, according to police spokesman Sgt. Trent Crump. As the suspect closed the door, the officer gave several commands for Brisbon to show him his hands.

"Brisbon placed one or both hands in his waistband area, which caused the officer to draw his weapon and illuminate the suspect with his flashlight," Crump said.

Brisbon fled toward the apartments. The officer caught up to Brisbon and tried to detain him, but he refused and yelled profanities at the officer, according to witnesses.

Crump said Brisbon and the officer got into a struggle in the doorway of an apartment during which Brisbon put his hand in his pocket. The officer grabbed onto the suspect's hand and believed he felt the handle of a gun inside the man's pocket.

The officer was unable to maintain his grip on the suspect's hand during the struggle. Fearing Brisbon had a gun in his pocket, the officer fired two rounds, striking him in the torso.

Backup officers began CPR until the Phoenix Fire Department arrived and treated Brison at the scene. He later was pronounced dead.

"This one went bad from the standpoint of how it ended," Crump said at a press conference Wednesday, "but the officer was doing exactly what we want him to do and that is fight crime."

He said the item being held in Brisbon's pocket was a pill vial containing a number of oxycodone tablets.

It's getting way too political nationally on these issues. Rumain Brisbon had 2 recent DUIs, a drug possession conviction and an armed burglary conviction. He had illegal pills in his possession at the site of a tipped off drug deal bust, ran from cops, then resisted arrest and got into a struggle. As part of that struggle the cop thought he was reaching for a gun in his pocket (which turned out to be the illegal drugs). It is sad, but the USA Today story is a joke.

Maybe the cop could have been able to subdue the guy without shooting him. But, when a guy has illegal drugs in his possession at a tipped off drug bust, he has a rap sheet, runs from cops and then gets into a fight with cops - he may end up getting shot. Instead, from the USA Today story, you'd think the guy was just sitting in his car outside of where a noise complaint occurred. It's just getting ridiculous right now.

I think that the cop in the Brown case acted within reason given the facts we know. I think the cop in the Garner case should have been punished and I think that the cop in Phoenix also acted reasonably given what he knew and how the suspect reacted.

But, the same people pissed at their perceived stereotyping of young black men as criminals by the cops are now branding all white cops as KKK-member hot heads looking to shoot any black kid they see. At the end of the day, we need to focus more on the cases where cops clearly overstep their boundaries (against any race) and focus less on the general stereotype. If there's a petition to sign to have the Garner cop reprimanded for his actions, I would sign it in a second. But if I have to see more and more stories like this Phoenix one, I'm going to start checking out on all this and we will get into a "boy crying wolf" situation to where when the next legit Garner-style case happens - my assumption will be the media drumming up controversy and not to look more into the facts.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So you're threatening to suspend people even if they haven't broken any rules and are being civil in their disagreement and stupidity?

I don't disagree that having those people not around would raise the level of discourse, but that's a pretty BS way of accomplishing that.

The only real "rule" 'round these parts is "don't act like an asshat." And frankly, the asshattery has increased to all-time highs in this thread, so that's the reasoning.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well under that logic why don't we execute anyone that breaks any law just in case they might kill someone at Wal-Mart later?

Everyone agrees that Wilson fired six shots that didn't hit Brown. He's damn lucky none of those caused harm to the numerous people living and working in that area.

And this is why I have stayed out of this conversation.

Who said anything about executing someone? Why take it to the extreme?

I said remove the threat. Don't let them get away for fear of confrontation.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

C'mon, man. You know "unpopular/left-winged opinions" are ripe pickings for a suspension. It's been that way for years.

Don't agree with the overwhelming conservative majority around here? Prepare to be boxed.

And the tribalism expressed in this post would be an example of continued asshattery.

[JPhillips]

But the local story is simply the version told by the PD with no other sources. I think the PD story has to be questioned to some degree. It's possible that their story is as inaccurate as the incident report in the Garner case.

But an NYPD internal report prepared right after his death on Staten Island last Thursday plays down the incident, with supervising officers failing to note the chokehold and insisting Garner was not in “great distress.”

Sgt. Dhanan Saminath told interviewers that the 43-year-old cigarette peddler was in cuffs with cops “maintaining control of him” and that he “did not appear to be in great distress,” the preliminary report obtained by the Daily News shows.

Sgt. Kizzy Adonis told investigators probing the death that “the perpetrator’s condition did not seem serious and that he did not appear to get worse.”

Without the video the use of the chokehold would have been denied by the PD.

[DaddyTorgo]

I know an asshat or two who needs a boxing...

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And this is why I have stayed out of this conversation.

Who said anything about executing someone? Why take it to the extreme?

I said remove the threat. Don't let them get away for fear of confrontation.

Given that we were talking about Brown/Wilson and what happened after Brown initially began to flee, what are you saying Wilson should have done other than firing?

edit: But the real issue is basing police procedure on what "might" happen. I don't think we want a police force that treats all crime as the beginning of a random murder spree.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

It's clear as a bell in that video that both parties were in the wrong. Period. And anyone who tries to argue otherwise may well be suspended, because arguing otherwise tells me that you're either just trolling or so thick-headed that not having you around will raise the level of discourse here. You have all been warned. I'm sick of the foolishness that I'm seeing from both sides of this discussion.

Why you are at it can you box Sun Tzu for claiming the Niners are the best franchise of the last 20 years? That is far more foolish than anything mentioned ITT

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Given that we were talking about Brown/Wilson and what happened after Brown initially began to flee, what are you saying Wilson should have done other than firing?

I am talking about a broader picture than the Brown case. I just used his name as an example of what coud happen if you let a criminal get away.

Anyway, I am disengaging from this topic.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I guess the question is: does the punishment (death) fit the crime (asking why I'm being detained and not immediately submitting)? People talk about slippery slopes and I think this definitely qualifies. You're creating a populace that is afraid of the police (maybe that's the goal). There is no recourse if someone is wrongly arrested and the prosecutors won't vigorously prosecute cases where cops are going overboard.

Of course it doesn't. My point isn't to argue one side or the other. My point is that this thread (and Facebook, and much of America) has reverted to such a level of base tribalism that assigning blame and pointing figures has become wayyyyyyyyyyyy more important than solving problems.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why you are at it can you box Sun Tzu for claiming the Niners are the best franchise of the last 20 years? That is far more foolish than anything mentioned ITT

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But the local story is simply the version told by the PD with no other sources. I think the PD story has to be questioned to some degree. It's possible that their story is as inaccurate as the incident report in the Garner case.

It's fine to question the police, but the start of the story "unarmed black man shot by white cop" and the talk of a "loud music disturbance" is completely disingenuous. Here's what we know per the facts (and 2-3 eyewitness accounts):
1. Police were called to the car based on two tips of illegal drugs being sold from the car.
2. When the police confronted the driver, who had both drug and armed robbery convictions on his record, he fled.
3. When the police caught up to the driver, he resisted arrest and began a struggle.
4. After the struggle (that unfortunately ended with the suspect getting shot), they found illegal drugs on his person.

Now, his buddy said he did nothing wrong, but it's clear that - at a minimum - he fled because he had drugs on him and resisted arrest once they caught up. Where's the grey area here? The USA today story makes it seem like the cop went up to a car near a "loud music disturbance" and tried to execute an innocent black kid.

[JPhillips]

I'm not arguing for the USAToday version as I don't know enough to know what is accurate. I'm just objecting to praising a story that is possibly as equally one sided as the one you object to.

edit: All of the facts you list are currently only coming from the police spokesman.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I guess the question is: does the punishment (death) fit the crime (asking why I'm being detained and not immediately submitting)?

That's not the relevant question or a fair characterization, unless you believe the officer intentionally killed Garner because he resisted arrested (or sold cigarettes).

The relevant question from a criminal perspective is whether the hold used was itself a crime, notwithstanding the end result. People are throwing around terms like "involuntary manslaughter" because that "seems right", but these are legal questions. Involuntary manslaughter still requires an initial crime, it doesn't mean killing someone by accident.

Whether or not the hold was itself criminal is a closer question. And the standards to apply to that kind of thing are very muddy. It's difficult to apply regular assault and battery statutes to a potential defendant who had full authority to seize the person. So that gets into the muddy legal world of "reasonableness", like with self-defense cases. And once there's "reasonableness" determinations to be made, there can be reasonable differences of opinion. Which should make someone nervous and careful when considering criminal charges.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not arguing for the USAToday version as I don't know enough to know what is accurate. I'm just objecting to praising a story that is possibly as equally one sided as the one you object to.

No one is disputing the facts I stated above. The difference is that one story deciding to omit a few and talk to some fairly questionable sources (ie, the guy's buddy). The local story simply layed out the fact backed by the police report and 2-3 eyewitnesses. At this point, that's all that can be done. Now, if a witness comes on and says that the suspect did not flee arrest or didn't get into a scuffle with the cops, that's news. To this point, none have come forward with that account. Even his buddy said he ran from the cops and got into a struggle.

EDIT - I don't even mind the activists and other accounts in the USA Today story - it can give a little balance. But atleast mention that the guy has a rap sheet and give the police report side and the facts we know right now. Whether or not people think the cops were justified in shooting Brisbon, we know that he was at the site of a tipped off drug deal with illegal drugs in his possession, had multiple prior convictions, he fled from cops and got into struggle with the cops. That's what we know is true. And, to me, doesn't sound like a situation the USA Today story is trying to paint by mentioning the loud music disturbance and that he was delivering fast food to his kids when a cop shot him.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

The relevant question from a criminal perspective is whether the hold used was itself a crime, notwithstanding the end result. People are throwing around terms like "involuntary manslaughter" because that "seems right", but these are legal questions. Involuntary manslaughter still requires an initial crime, it doesn't mean killing someone by accident.

Whether or not the hold was itself criminal is a closer question. And the standards to apply to that kind of thing are very muddy. It's difficult to apply regular assault and battery statutes to a potential defendant who had full authority to seize the person. So that gets into the muddy legal world of "reasonableness", like with self-defense cases. And once there's "reasonableness" determinations to be made, there can be reasonable differences of opinion. Which should make someone nervous and careful when considering criminal charges.

Since the hold was forbidden, from my understanding, by the NYPD, it seems the actions of the officer would be cause for termination of employment at the very least.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm not talking specifically about Mike Brown anymore. Try to follow the conversation.

Well, that's one person in America. Way to lead the way!

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's just like high speed chases. Most departments have greatly limited the circumstances under which a chase is appropriate. The same should be done for personal confrontations.

One can make that argument (Aggressive NYPD policies on petty street crime were hugely successful in cleaning up the city - but now that the city has been cleaned up, maybe they're not needed as much.) But we're talking criminal charges and prison here. That's not the appropriate place to "make a statement" about what we want officers to do in these situations. A conviction would be thrown out if a prosecutor made statements along those lines that at closing argument.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Since the hold was forbidden, from my understanding, by the NYPD, it seems the actions of the officer would be cause for termination of employment at the very least.

The union will fight any attempt to discipline him, because they characterize the hold as a permissible headlock that he was trained to use in circumstances like this. And that will be tricky, because while the NYPD is dealing with this guy, and perhaps trying to fire him (and arguing that he broke policy, or whatever), they'll ALSO be defending a lawsuit against the family for the same conduct. (Edit: I've worked in agencies that represent police departments who try to fire police officers, and fortunately in those circumstances those agencies are completely different than the ones that will be defending the officers' actions in a lawsuit by the family against the PD - and the PD, who is our client in those scenarios, is always very gung-ho about wanting to fire the officers - it's usually the lawyers that try to get them to show more caution.)

[BillJasper]

I find this disturbing:

Pantaleo, 29, and his police partner, Justin D'Amico, testified in front of the jury. D'Amico appeared only after being granted immunity from prosecution.

Why the need to grant immunity when everything is on video?

[molson]

Originally Posted by whomario

The problem (and difference to countries like germany or the UK) i see is mainly in the fact that a frightened (or racist or pissed of or spiteful) cop in the US has a much higher availability to deadly force and/or a much lower threshold to use it. There seems to be a relative lack of alternative methods that are used before reaching for the gun.

I looked into this once and I do think that the U.S. is much more liberal in allowing everyone - police and civilians - to use force in self-defense. Some states have put the right of self-defense in their constitution. It's a very old U.S. value. And there's similarities in that law and culture and the amount of force officers are permitted to use.

Of course in this case, he didn't reach for a gun. A few pages pack, someone was arguing that all officers are expertly trained MMA shoot fighters and Wilson should have been able to take Brown down with his bare hands. Well, this officer tried that, and death resulted. Tasers have caused many deaths as well. If you have 100,000 resisted arrests, some number are going to end badly regardless of the method used. The best we can do is try to minimize that number, and, perhaps, make it a more serious crime to resist arrest instead of the throwaway misdemeanor it is now - because of the inherent danger it poses to both the suspect and the officer (and onlookers.) But that last one isn't likely to fly these days, in a culture where resistance to police officers is viewed by many people as patriotic.

[BillJasper]

Seven officers end up on the scene and the only way to get the suspect under control is for one to choke him to death? That is a disturbing video to watch.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: But the real issue is basing police procedure on what "might" happen. I don't think we want a police force that treats all crime as the beginning of a random murder spree.

See, that's where I'd argue that it's a bit more....complicated. (Gracious, I sound like Hunter in that scene in Crimson Tide where Ramsey is grilling him after the meal with the other officers? ) Part of an officer's job--and hopefully his training--is to assess levels of threat and respond appropriately. I presume that's a big part of why it's hard to prosecute/convict them. They are asked as flawed humans to make that assessment in a matter of seconds. That's freaking HARD. However, sometimes they pretty clearly make the wrong call there, and sometimes it's based on race. I'll give a concrete example of that from a few weeks ago.

My family and I were heading to the Wooly Worm Festival in Blowing Rock, NC a few weeks ago. Somewhere north of 10,000 people descend on Blowing Rock for this weekend, apparently. (There's another big festival, maybe two, that same weekend.) Because of the location and pricing, it's a relatively upscale crowd and just not the sort of place where you'd expect cops to be on high alert for criminal behavior; it's an "easy" detail. It's also pretty much lily white. We were there around 3 hours and in that time I never saw another person of color other than myself and my two biracial children. As we were nearing the area where we needed to decide where to park, just about every driver was rolling down the window and talking to the cop who was directing people. I am driving a minivan. I have my wife next to me, two kids buckled into car seats in the back. Because my father taught me how to be safe around white cops (silly that they had to..but..well,) I hang my left hand out of the window so he can see it and put my right hand high at the top of the steering wheel so it is also in plain sight. I don't just lower my window. I lower the window behind me as well so that he can see more clearly that there are two small children in the car. When the exact same cop interacted with the driver of the car immediately in front of me, 30 seconds before he interacted with me, he ambled lazily over to the car, put both hands on the open window, and even turned his head, taking his eyes off of the driver, when he pointed out where to park. When he saw me in my minivan at the Wooly Worm Festival with one wedding-ringed hand in clear view outside the car, the other in clear view on the steering wheel, with two kids in the car, he didn't approach the car like he did the one before. Instead, he got into an athletic stance with his right hand inches from his gun and remained in that position for the entire interaction. When he pointed out where I should park, he kept his eyes locked on me the entire time. He didn't assess the threat. The only thing about me that could have caused his "this guy might be a threat" radar to go off was the color of my skin. Period.

All that said, in both the Brown and Garner cases, there were clearly reasons other than race to cause the assessment of the threat to escalate. But when it is (correctly or incorrectly) perceived by the subject that race plays a factor in the initial assessment of danger, it can cause the subject to react more negatively than he would have normally, thus creating the self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides of the equation.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Without the video the use of the chokehold would have been denied by the PD.

Oh, most definitely. One of the good effects about the camera (which btw was taken by a third party) is that we can see the overaggressive, and prohibited by the NYPD, use of force. And of course the cops are quite quick to push back anyone that has a cell phone out taking videos or pictures.

I mean if you see the video there are like 4-5 cops around Eric Garner when he refuses to put his hands behind his back. They didn't need to put the guy in a chokehold, especially since the NYPD doesn't allow that. In other lines of work, you get in pretty bad trouble for not following the procedures laid down in your job - attorneys tend to have a field day with that. So I don't get why the case didn't even get to trial. I am 99% certain that if Eric Garner was a white dude, it would have definitely gone to trial - I'm reminded that yesterday I think it was Nashville just fired a cop for choking a white college student (the student is ok).

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, I can come up with two reasons. First, Europeans have had a long history of subjugation and submissions, contrast to a personal liberty and freedom mind sets (ie, anything goes) here. Second, Europe is not any less religious than US where many claims to be religious but believe in a false gospel.

The problem of institutional/authoritative violence (both public and private entities) and mob violence have long, long histories. Someone brought up Esau vs Jacob, that's a good place to start understanding the problem and the solution.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

My family and I were heading to the Wooly Worm Festival in Blowing Rock, NC a few weeks ago. Somewhere north of 10,000 people descend on Blowing Rock for this weekend, apparently. (There's another big festival, maybe two, that same weekend.) Because of the location and pricing, it's a relatively upscale crowd and just not the sort of place where you'd expect cops to be on high alert for criminal behavior; it's an "easy" detail. It's also pretty much lily white. We were there around 3 hours and in that time I never saw another person of color other than myself and my two biracial children. As we were nearing the area where we needed to decide where to park, just about every driver was rolling down the window and talking to the cop who was directing people. I am driving a minivan. I have my wife next to me, two kids buckled into car seats in the back. Because my father taught me how to be safe around white cops (silly that they had to..but..well,) I hang my left hand out of the window so he can see it and put my right hand high at the top of the steering wheel so it is also in plain sight. I don't just lower my window. I lower the window behind me as well so that he can see more clearly that there are two small children in the car. When the exact same cop interacted with the driver of the car immediately in front of me, 30 seconds before he interacted with me, he ambled lazily over to the car, put both hands on the open window, and even turned his head, taking his eyes off of the driver, when he pointed out where to park. When he saw me in my minivan at the Wooly Worm Festival with one wedding-ringed hand in clear view outside the car, the other in clear view on the steering wheel, with two kids in the car, he didn't approach the car like he did the one before. Instead, he got into an athletic stance with his right hand inches from his gun and remained in that position for the entire interaction. When he pointed out where I should park, he kept his eyes locked on me the entire time. He didn't assess the threat. The only thing about me that could have caused his "this guy might be a threat" radar to go off was the color of my skin. Period.

All that said, in both the Brown and Garner cases, there were clearly reasons other than race to cause the assessment of the threat to escalate. But when it is (correctly or incorrectly) perceived by the subject that race plays a factor in the initial assessment of danger, it can cause the subject to react more negatively than he would have normally, thus creating the self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides of the equation.

This is fucking frightening, and it needs to change.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

If through my own negligence I do something in my line of work that ends up killing somebody, regardless of my intent, it may not be murder, but at the very, very, very least it's criminally negligent manslaughter.

That's not the case in the U.S. Negligence of doctors and hospital staff kill somewhere in the six figures of people in the U.S. every year and none of them have been charged. Same with workplace facilitates. It takes more. Negligence generally isn't criminal in the U.S. Even "involuntary manslaughter" requires some criminal act that happens to result in death. A few states have enacted "negligence homicide" kinds of statutes, but if you read them, they require things like a showing of "extreme indifference to human life," which can be tough to prove. Especially when there's several other contributing factors to a death.

[NobodyHere]

Did the cops have any evidence that Garner was actually doing anything wrong before they murdered him?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

It's clear as a bell in that video that both parties were in the wrong. Period. And anyone who tries to argue otherwise may well be suspended, because arguing otherwise tells me that you're either just trolling or so thick-headed that not having you around will raise the level of discourse here. You have all been warned. I'm sick of the foolishness that I'm seeing from both sides of this discussion.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Did the cops have any evidence that Garner was actually doing anything wrong before they murdered him?

So you trying to get boxed then?

[NobodyHere]

What I meant to post was:

Is there any evidence that Garner was doing anything wrong before the cops tried to arrest and subsequently murder him.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

See, that's where I'd argue that it's a bit more....complicated. (Gracious, I sound like Hunter in that scene in Crimson Tide where Ramsey is grilling him after the meal with the other officers? ) Part of an officer's job--and hopefully his training--is to assess levels of threat and respond appropriately. I presume that's a big part of why it's hard to prosecute/convict them. They are asked as flawed humans to make that assessment in a matter of seconds. That's freaking HARD. However, sometimes they pretty clearly make the wrong call there, and sometimes it's based on race. I'll give a concrete example of that from a few weeks ago.

My family and I were heading to the Wooly Worm Festival in Blowing Rock, NC a few weeks ago. Somewhere north of 10,000 people descend on Blowing Rock for this weekend, apparently. (There's another big festival, maybe two, that same weekend.) Because of the location and pricing, it's a relatively upscale crowd and just not the sort of place where you'd expect cops to be on high alert for criminal behavior; it's an "easy" detail. It's also pretty much lily white. We were there around 3 hours and in that time I never saw another person of color other than myself and my two biracial children. As we were nearing the area where we needed to decide where to park, just about every driver was rolling down the window and talking to the cop who was directing people. I am driving a minivan. I have my wife next to me, two kids buckled into car seats in the back. Because my father taught me how to be safe around white cops (silly that they had to..but..well,) I hang my left hand out of the window so he can see it and put my right hand high at the top of the steering wheel so it is also in plain sight. I don't just lower my window. I lower the window behind me as well so that he can see more clearly that there are two small children in the car. When the exact same cop interacted with the driver of the car immediately in front of me, 30 seconds before he interacted with me, he ambled lazily over to the car, put both hands on the open window, and even turned his head, taking his eyes off of the driver, when he pointed out where to park. When he saw me in my minivan at the Wooly Worm Festival with one wedding-ringed hand in clear view outside the car, the other in clear view on the steering wheel, with two kids in the car, he didn't approach the car like he did the one before. Instead, he got into an athletic stance with his right hand inches from his gun and remained in that position for the entire interaction. When he pointed out where I should park, he kept his eyes locked on me the entire time. He didn't assess the threat. The only thing about me that could have caused his "this guy might be a threat" radar to go off was the color of my skin. Period.

All that said, in both the Brown and Garner cases, there were clearly reasons other than race to cause the assessment of the threat to escalate. But when it is (correctly or incorrectly) perceived by the subject that race plays a factor in the initial assessment of danger, it can cause the subject to react more negatively than he would have normally, thus creating the self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides of the equation.

Having lived in that area 20 years ago I was stuck at 10,000 extra people in Blowing Rock. I hope they've improved the roads and parking since I was there.