The Latest Potentially-Explosive Racially-Charged Murder

[Zarathustra]

The grand jury process is accountability. People just don't like the ruling ... people who haven't seen all the evidence which the grand jury saw.

Watch the tape again. The cop did not have him in a choke hold for more than a few seconds. The choke hold couldn't have killed Garner, because Garner was alive for a while after the choke hold was released. Can anyone explain how a choke hold can kill you after it has been stopped? Did the cop have Darth Vader choking power?

Garner had asthma. Maybe he had an asthma attack during this encounter.

Just because you watch something doesn't mean you've actually seen it.

[Edit: I just watched it again. Garner doesn't complain about not being able to breathe until AFTER the choke hold is released. That's when his first utterance of "I can't breathe" begins. No one is holding his neck at that point. The cop who got him in the choke hold has the "99" on the back of his shirt. Once Garner begins his litany of "I can't breathe," this cop is no longer behind him, but in front of him, over him. Garner continues complaining about his breathing 11 more times while no one is holding his neck.

It's possible that some other cop action killed him. But no one is claiming this. Everyone assumes that it was the choke hold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-xHqf1BVE4]

how does a python kill it's victim, by compressing the chest and abdomen, and increasing that compression everytime the victim exhales, until the victim sufficates from the inability to inhale.

Now pile five cops on a man, press directly into the spine, continue to stay atop the man and as he exhales, he loses ground on the inhale. After a while he no longer to take in enough air to continue to live, and he dies.

Maybe. That's why I said it's possible some other cop action killed him. But that's speculation. And besides, people are blaming this on the chokehold, not what you described. If they're wrong about that, then maybe it's just not accurate to say the cops killed him. A man with health problems died during an arrest which escalated in force due to his own actions. Perhaps criminals with health problems shouldn't resist arrest.

[Avatar]

I agree that the law was stupid and authoritarian. Just like the drug war. Unfortunately, we don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to obey.

We all do anyway though...

--A

[Zarathustra]

I agree that the law was stupid and authoritarian. Just like the drug war. Unfortunately, we don't get to pick and choose which laws we want to obey.

We all do anyway though...

--A

Well, so did Garner.

[Ananda]

Perhaps criminals with health problems shouldn't resist arrest.

wow.

[Zarathustra]

So you think they should resist arrest?

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

If police are acting unlawfully should it still be illegal to refuse or resist their unlawful commands?

[Vraith]

Zarathustra,

If police are acting unlawfully should it still be illegal to refuse or resist their unlawful commands?

This is basically what I was getting at earlier when I said we've made arrest too easy.
I am nearly certain that there are cases [and I know there is one very old one] where the courts have said explicitly that people have the right to resist an unlawful arrest...up to and including killing the officer.
As a practical matter, if you do it you are probably going to get hurt, perhaps die, and no one will be punished except you.
Because your chances of convincing anyone that the arrest WAS "unlawful" are near zero.
People [including those on juries of all varieties] almost always believe the police.
They believe the myth of police judgement/justified suspicion even though it is a myth.
Even if they think the officer was probably wrong, they think YOU are more wrong...kinda like folk [most] think it's bad to beat someone for being gay...but it wouldn't happen so much if they just wouldn't lisp and flaunt where they shouldn't.
I'm not even persuaded they think law enforcement is right or justified so much as they are terrified/in denial of what the world looks like if they admit that the peeps with guns that they want to keep things safe and stable lie, and/or make mistakes and/or act irrationally just as often as they do themselves.

[Zarathustra]

SS: No, if the cops are acting unlawfully, it shouldn't be wrong/illegal to resist. If they tell you to give them a blowjob, for instance, I'd say you have a pretty good case for resisting that order.

However, no one disputes that cops can arrest people for crimes. That's not unlawful. Putting Garner in cuffs and taking him into custody does not violate their lawful powers. We do not get to decide whether or not we want to be arrested. Even if you're innocent, you don't get to be your own judge/jury on the spot. Innocent people get arrested all the time. I teach my children to comply with officer orders if they get detained. Obviously, not everyone learns this vital lesson and have no respect for authority. They make it harder on themselves.

The facts are that Garner would be alive today if:

1. He had not resisted arrest.
2. He was not violating the law in the first place.
3. If the law wasn't written to create a black market, incentivizing him to take these actions.
4. If the cops chose not to do their job.

The first two were within Garner's power to change. The third is within society's power to change. I don't see how we can change the last one if we want a justice system. If you can't enforce laws, there's no point in having them. That would be just "suggestions." I'm in favor of changing our laws. But until that happens, people must do what they can to avoid confrontations with police or putting themselves on the wrong side of the law. If they're not going to do that, then they have to accept the consequences of their actions, lest they escalate the situation to their own peril.

It has been suggested that Garner could have just been given a ticket and fined. But let's say he was selling black market cigarettes in front of a store that sold legal cigarettes. Does society not have the right to remove him from this business-stealing location? The store has a right to engage in its legal business; Garner does not. He would be violating the rights of others.

What if he's selling to minors? How much do you want to bet he wasn't checking people's IDs while he sold his illegal cigarettes? Should society not be able to force him to stop selling cigarettes to kids? Even if the cops fined him, it's clear he had no intention of stopping. He was out on bail for another crime. He's been arrested dozens of times. Serial offenders can't be stopped with a ticket. At some point, the cops should have the right to escalate, if we intend on enforcing these laws. If we don't intend on enforcing them, then we shouldn't have them, and just accept that some sleezebags are going to sell illegal products to children. It is a lethal substance, after all. I can't even light up in a restaurant in my city.

I do not think Garner deserved to die. I'm not even blaming him for his death. I'm just pointing out that there are things he could have done to prevent it.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Meanwhile, the real tragedy continues to unfold.

The family of slain 12-year-old Tamir Rice has filed a federal civil rights suit against the city of Cleveland and the two officers involved in his death. Rice was playing inside a park with a toy gun that had the plastic strip removed when an officer pulled up and immediately opened fire. On Monday, Tamir’s mother, Samaria Rice, spoke out along with family attorney Benjamin Crump.

Samaria Rice: "Tamir was a bright child. He had a promising future, and he was very talented in all sports — soccer, basketball, football. He played the drums. He drew. He played video games. He was a great swimmer. The community loved him. He was a helper at the school and at the rec. And, you know, everybody just loved him."

Benjamin Crump: "This scenario cannot happen again in America. We cannot have children playing cops and robbers on the playground and police officers coming and claiming their lives because they are not equipped to deal with and encounter with a kid and a toy gun. They are supposed to de-escalate, not escalate a situation. And everything you see in that video escalated the situation."

The Rice family says the officers did not administer first aid on Tamir after he was shot, and that Tamir’s 14-year-old sister was tackled and handcuffed after she arrived at the scene. The family wants the case to go straight to trial instead of before a grand jury.

Unfortunately for the family, no court will hear a case like this which hasn't gone before a grand jury so their efforts will probably be futile. At best, the city will reach some sort of adjudicated settlement with the family and the details will be sealed.

So...they shoot the kid then don't administer first aid? Then they tackle the 14-year-old sister as she runs up to check on her brother? Wow. Their balls must really be inflated at this point--they shot one kid and tackled another.

[Fist and Faith]

At no time whatsoever was Garner the slightest bit violent or aggressive. When they tried to put his hands behind his back, he did not swat at the arms of any of the police.. He raised his hands in front of him, in a perfectly non-threatening way. He didn't move his feet until he was being yanked off balance by the arm that was choking him, and he only moved them to try to stop himself from falling. When they had him on the ground, five guys keeping him down, he was not being at all aggressive or threatening. He was not trying to fight them off. No swinging of arms, no kicking of legs, no threats or bad language. My opinion is that they did not need the choke hold or all those bodies on him.

The choke hold was on him for 15 seconds. It began at 1:40 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-xHqf1BVE4 , remained when he went to his hands and knees, and ended at 1:55, when 99 switched from the choke hold to pressing his head to the sidewalk.

Garner started saying "I can't breath" just before the choke hold let up. I suspect that, although he was able to repeat "I can't breath" many times, he was, indeed, having difficulty breathing. The reason I suspect this is that he died. Even if he did not die because of asphyxiation, I've heard that people having a heart attack say they feel like they can't breath.

He probably would not have died from having been in a choke hold for 15 seconds and having men's bodies on his if he was not in such terrible shape. But he probably would not have died if they had NOT treated him the way they should treat someone who is trying to take their heads off.

And yes, to be fair to the police, he would not have died if he had not resisted at all. He shouldn't have. He was in trouble with the law quite a bit, and he was in the wrong again. He knows how this works. He was playing the persecuted victim.

Also, although, considering the lack of threat, the police overreacted, they were not hitting, kicking, or hurting him in any way. The didn't even taunt him. They weren't trying to kill or hurt him. They were trying to arrest him.

[Vraith]

[quote="Zarathustra". If they tell you to give them a blowjob, for instance, I'd say you have a pretty good case for resisting that order.[/quote]

That's hysterical, given the number of "working folk" who avoid arrest by giving sexual favors, yet end up in jail when they refuse...and the number of police who never end up in jail for stealing their services.

But more seriously, you gave a list of things that leave him alive...fairly accurate one.

But nothing like comprehensive or the best one...because not one action they took was necessary, nor the best option in the moment, and not even close to the best long term/policy/procedural option.

[Ananda]

So you think they should resist arrest?

That's a false choice, isn't it? I said 'wow' because I found the sentiment you wrote to be disgusting.

The UN has been getting into looking at what's going on in the us and have criticised what is going on. www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=4 ... IeMwL6R_8s
Maybe the un should get involved and send an oversight committee to the us? The american police seems a little out of control.

And, there are other options beside attack a man from behind. He wasn't going anywhere and was not a threat. The police are there to protect people, even those who are allegedly committing crimes. There is no death penalty, even in the us, for being uncooperative, right?

[ussusimiel]

So you think they should resist arrest?

That's a false choice, isn't it? I said 'wow' because I found the sentiment you wrote to be disgusting.

Ananda, there's no need to personalise the discussion, even if you found the statement not to your taste. It is a valid observation (if a bit harsh, under the circumstances). I know that when my health is compromised (e.g. the flu) I am careful what activities I engage in (e.g. I don't climb stairs quickly). If I were overweight and had asthma I would be careful not to get into physical confrontations.

u.

[Zarathustra]

So you think they should resist arrest?

That's a false choice, isn't it? I said 'wow' because I found the sentiment you wrote to be disgusting.

It's a true choice, and there were only two (general) choices for Garner once he decided to break the law and got caught: resist or comply. Since this was a binary decision for him, your terminology of "false choice" is itself false.

The choice I was favoring would have kept him alive. What's disgusting about that?

And, there are other options beside attack a man from behind. He wasn't going anywhere and was not a threat. The police are there to protect people, even those who are allegedly committing crimes. There is no death penalty, even in the us, for being uncooperative, right?

Talk about a false choice. As if the "death penalty" was applied in this case. You do realize the difference between a death penalty and a guy accidentally dying while resisting arrest, right? You don't honestly think the cops intended to kill him, do you?

Yes, the cops had other options. (That's a different question from whether or not Garner had other options.) They could have tased him, beat him with their clubs, maced him, shot him, etc. What they did instead was the least violent means available to them, the means which put themselves in greater danger than all the other methods, because they had to physically subdue a man who was significantly larger than they were.

Tell me, how would you arrest a man who refuses to be arrested? Ask him pretty please with sugar on top? Offer him some money to put the cuffs on?

[Ananda]

So you think they should resist arrest?

That's a false choice, isn't it? I said 'wow' because I found the sentiment you wrote to be disgusting.

Ananda, there's no need to personalise the discussion, even if you found the statement not to your taste. It is a valid observation (if a bit harsh, under the circumstances). I know that when my health is compromised (e.g. the flu) I am careful what activities I engage in (e.g. I don't climb stairs quickly). If I were overweight and had asthma I would be careful not to get into physical confrontations.

u.

I said I found the sentiment disgusting because I do. I didn't say I found Zed to be disgusting. Finding it disgusting is my opinion.

[Zarathustra]

You're free to have your opinions. I see your "disgusting" and raise you a "naïve, irrational, and emotional." That's my opinion of your opinion.

I don't think anyone should resist arrest, for purely logical reasons, i.e. you can't have a justice system if people can decide to tell the cops "no." But there are some people who shouldn't resist arrest more than others, specifically for their own protection. That includes minors, elderly, and people with health problems.

What I've said is a fact: resisting arrest is more dangerous for people with health issues. Right? You can react to that fact emotionally all you want. That's not a rebuttal. And it solves nothing.

[Ananda]

You're free to have your opinions. I see your "disgusting" and raise you a "naïve, irrational, and emotional." That's my opinion of your opinion.

I don't think anyone should resist arrest, for purely logical reasons, i.e. you can't have a justice system if people can decide to tell the cops "no." But there are some people who shouldn't resist arrest more than others, specifically for their own protection. That includes minors, elderly, and people with health problems.

What I've said is a fact: resisting arrest is more dangerous for people with health issues. Right? You can react to that fact emotionally all you want. That's not a rebuttal. And it solves nothing.

That's fine with me, Zed. I still think the sentiment is disgusting.

The resolution would be for your police to have independent oversight which I did say in the previous post. Have the un come in and help you guys, maybe? Of course, there is no way the us would ever allow the un to come in, so some other independent oversight seems needed. Guess you missed when I did say that the first time.

Your position is that it is to the people being 'served' by the community to always comply with the american police because they will probably hurt/kill you if you don't.

You've posted about your drug use numerous times. Those items are illegal in the us, I believe. You were just lucky that you were never caught or you'd be a felon and criminal, too.

[ussusimiel]

Ananda, there's no need to personalise the discussion, even if you found the statement not to your taste. It is a valid observation (if a bit harsh, under the circumstances). I know that when my health is compromised (e.g. the flu) I am careful what activities I engage in (e.g. I don't climb stairs quickly). If I were overweight and had asthma I would be careful not to get into physical confrontations.

I said I found the sentiment disgusting because I do. I didn't say I found Zed to be disgusting. Finding it disgusting is my opinion.

I find many of the opinions and beliefs people hold and the things they say here in the 'Tank confusing, challenging and, at times, distressing*. That is my emotional reaction to the discussions and has almost no relevance to the discussions themselves. What I do with my emotional response is put the energy into researching my position and then composing a substantive response to whatever has set me off. I let my passion show through a robust setting out of my position.

I commented on your post, in this case, because I wanted to highlight, that as someone who generally agrees with your positions, I don't always agree with how you represent them. In the Garner case, I would have focused on the 'duty of care' that the police have to those they 'serve', even when a person is being uncooperative and awkward.

u.

P.S. I discovered a new breed of politics while writing this post. I may be becoming a Bleeding-heart libertarian

* Which is why I keep on coming here. (Maybe I am a masochist after all )

[Fist and Faith]

Yes, the cops had other options. (That's a different question from whether or not Garner had other options.) They could have tased him, beat him with their clubs, maced him, shot him, etc. What they did instead was the least violent means available to them, the means which put themselves in greater danger than all the other methods, because they had to physically subdue a man who was significantly larger than they were.

Tell me, how would you arrest a man who refuses to be arrested? Ask him pretty please with sugar on top? Offer him some money to put the cuffs on?

When the police first tried to get Garner's hands behind his back to cuff him, he resisted. But he didn't fight. There's a big difference, and the reaction to resisting should be different than to fighting. At no time were the police in any danger of any kind, because he was not attacking, or even threatening. And they didn't need to react how they did out of concern that he would get away - because he wasn't moving at all. He was a perfect example of peaceful resistance.

There was certainly a less violent means available to them. They could have backed up a step, and not escalated the situation so quickly. Garner was not escalating things. No, they should not have walked away and left him alone. He broke the law, and I guess was even on probation. But the only thing he had done at the moment was not let them put his arms behind his back. Try being calm before a choke hold and five-man pile-on. He had to go with them. He is not allowed to say No. It doesn't work like that. When police say you're under arrest, you're under arrest. "You're under arrest. There are five of us, and we're armed with guns, tasers, and mace. We don't want it to go down that way, but you ARE going with us." Let it sink in for a second. "Come on, don't make us do it the hard way. We will do it the hard way if you don't give us a choice, and we will succeed. Put your hands behind your back so we can put the cuffs on you." Would it have worked? Who can say. They didn't try. Since he wasn't being violent or threatening, it wouldn't have hurt to try. Instead, they just jumped hard on him.

I suspect they were misreading him. We have the advantage of the video. Here's another example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsuYIN7y8Ew
At 50 seconds, Roger Clemens throws high to Manny Ramirez. Manny ducks scared, and is furious. For no reason. The pitch was just high. But it was a very tense situation, as the previous fifty seconds show. And the police were in a tense situation. Garner yanked his arms away from them, and raised his hands. I'll bet they thought he was doing more. He wasn't. But they were in a situation that could have escalated quickly and violently. But, like Ramirez, because of the tension and adrenalin, it was the police who did the escalating.

[Ananda]

Ananda, there's no need to personalise the discussion, even if you found the statement not to your taste. It is a valid observation (if a bit harsh, under the circumstances). I know that when my health is compromised (e.g. the flu) I am careful what activities I engage in (e.g. I don't climb stairs quickly). If I were overweight and had asthma I would be careful not to get into physical confrontations.

I said I found the sentiment disgusting because I do. I didn't say I found Zed to be disgusting. Finding it disgusting is my opinion.

I find many of the opinions and beliefs people hold and the things they say here in the 'Tank confusing, challenging and, at times, distressing*. That is my emotional reaction to the discussions and has almost no relevance to the discussions themselves. What I do with my emotional response is put the energy into researching my position and then composing a substantive response to whatever has set me off. I let my passion show through a robust setting out of my position.

I commented on your post, in this case, because I wanted to highlight, that as someone who generally agrees with your positions, I don't always agree with how you represent them. In the Garner case, I would have focused on the 'duty of care' that the police have to those they 'serve', even when a person is being uncooperative and awkward.

u.

P.S. I discovered a new breed of politics while writing this post. I may be becoming a Bleeding-heart libertarian

* Which is why I keep on coming here. (Maybe I am a masochist after all )

På det lilla viset... har du skitit i det blå skåpet!
I find it funny how dismissive people are of emotions in discussion. It is my opinion that almost everything we believe, hold tight and so is directly related back to our feelings and physiology. People are very good at putting polished veneers on positions and so, but the core why they feel that direction in the first place will lead back to upbringing, socialisation, personal experience, brain chemistry and structure, education, rationalisation, logic, instinct... all filtered through your feels and seminal experiences. Maths and scientific method are something else, but the context of this forum, feels and instinct are the structure under the facade, I think. And, I think we are all full of crap.

Also, there are many people who say how they feel. Cail, for example, kept referring to finn's view on the israel stuff as disgusting and antisemitic as an obvious example where people say how they do feel here. Not certain why you are so sensitive if I say I found an idea disgusting?