Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:58 am**

If you guys are at all interested, here is a short documentary about police in sweden, norway and finland with a police man from los angeles touring them and talking about the differences.
The Norden - Police
It is not in english, but there are subtitles and they speak english a lot since the american policeman doesn't speak the language and the police he meets all speak english.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:25 pm**

F&F, I agree that Garner was not violent, I'm just not sure it matters. The cops were not acting in self-defense. That's not even their claim. It's not like the Brown case where his violence justified deadly force. Some people (Ananda) are merely being disingenuous with their language. This wasn't a "death sentence" intentionally carried out with the purpose of killing him.

As for taking Garner's safety into account, that was my point. I think they *were* taking his safety into account by not using more violent means available to them. It looks rough in the video, but cops take down noncompliant perps like this all the time, without even a single injury. If Garner hadn't had other health problems, it wouldn't have been an issue at all. It would have looked bad to those of us who don't risk our life taking down criminals, but Garner would have been fine, without even a bruise to show for it. I'm sure the cops were just as shocked as everyone else that this led to his death.

Enforcing laws is a messy business. That's why we should think damn hard before we make something illegal. We should only do so if we accept putting our fellow citizens in danger, because force is inherently dangerous.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:03 pm**

Ananda wrote:If you guys are at all interested, here is a short documentary about police in sweden, norway and finland with a police man from los angeles touring them and talking about the differences.
The Norden - Police
It is not in english, but there are subtitles and they speak english a lot since the american policeman doesn't speak the language and the police he meets all speak english.

Since I was home sick I had the time to sit and watch this. It was an interesting video that shows the differences and similarities to police in two radically different areas. From what I saw, I don't believe the style of law enforcement in Norway/Finland would work in some parts of LA. However in areas with low crime it just might. Like I've said before, we should look for more non-lethal ways to take down criminals and defuse situations with lethal force being the very last resort.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:51 pm**

Zarathustra,

Should the officer who used the Choak hold banned by the department be punished?

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:32 pm**

The stupid.......It burns....

Was it a bad a choice of an iconic song? Or was it a racist message to weekend protesters?

CBS 2’s Dorothy Tucker takes a look at why “Sweet Home, Alabama” is leaving some on a sour note.

The 1974 hit by Lynyrd Skynyrd is considered by some to be an anthem that celebrates the confederate South.

It was heard on Saturday, in Chicago’s Garfield Park neighborhood, during a peaceful protest against police brutality, in support of the “Black Lives Matter” movement. The song is heard blaring from the windows of an unmarked gray police car, in a video posted on YouTube this weekend.

“I couldn’t believe it was happening,” says Gabriel Michael, who shot the video.

He says there were four officers in the car trailing the protesters as they headed for Garfield Park.

“They all appeared to be white or Latino,” he says. “They seemed to be grinning inside.”

Michael says he thinks the cops were possibly trying to instigate protesters, given the song’s meaning to some.

Organizers of the West Side protest went further, saying the incident “is another sharp example of the naked racism and white supremacy rampant in this society.”

But defenders of the police, who declined to go on camera, say the officers may have just been listening to a favorite song, or preparing to cheer on Alabama, which played later in the day. Michael says, if so, the timing was bad.

Chicago police say they’re investigating.

“As a Department, we are committed to community policing and fostering stronger relationships, based on trust and understanding, with the communities we serve. With respect to the peaceful protests, as you have seen over the past week CPD is dedicated to protecting residents’ right to free speech and peaceful assembly,” a statement issued by the department said.

The Fraternal Order of Police, which represents police officers, did not respond to a request for an interview.

This is news. This is getting a police investigation. 384 murders in Chicago this year, and this is what's being investigated.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:49 pm**

SerScot wrote:Zarathustra,

Should the officer who used the Choak hold banned by the department be punished?

Any employee who takes actions against employer policy should face disciplinary action, whether it leads to a death or not (in this case, I don't think it did, as I spelled out above). But you've chosen your words carefully, I suppose, to avoid saying, "Should he be charged with a crime?" I assume this means you know the chokehold wasn't illegal, merely against police policy. But in case these assumptions aren't correct, I should also state that I don't think the officer should be charged with a crime, and the grand jury's decision here was correct.

There is even some dispute about whether or not it was indeed a chokehold or merely a headlock. There is a difference. A real chokehold makes you pass out. That's the point of it. So if it wasn't a chokehold, and it didn't kill Garner (as I believe to be the case on both counts), then it's really a nonissue that has been turned into another cultural myth perpetuated by angry mobs and the people who benefit from stirring them up.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:31 pm**

Zarathustra wrote: some dispute about whether or not it was indeed a chokehold or merely a headlock. There is a difference. A real chokehold makes you pass out. That's the point of it.

There are at least three different holds that are nearly identical...and two of them can kill. And it is extremely easy to think you're doing any one while you're actually doing one of the others...and a tiny slip or twitch and you aren't "controlling" someone, you are killing them and it can happen fast.
OTOH, a slip or twitch in a slightly different manner, and you better hope they're slow, plan to submit, or you have friends around---cuz you are extremely vulnerable with few options for defense.
An arm around the neck is never, ever, safe.

A physical confrontation was probably completely unnecessary in this case...and the throttling was definitely so.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:40 pm**

SoulBiter wrote:
Ananda wrote:If you guys are at all interested, here is a short documentary about police in sweden, norway and finland with a police man from los angeles touring them and talking about the differences.
The Norden - Police
It is not in english, but there are subtitles and they speak english a lot since the american policeman doesn't speak the language and the police he meets all speak english.
Since I was home sick I had the time to sit and watch this. It was an interesting video that shows the differences and similarities to police in two radically different areas. From what I saw, I don't believe the style of law enforcement in Norway/Finland would work in some parts of LA. However in areas with low crime it just might. Like I've said before, we should look for more non-lethal ways to take down criminals and defuse situations with lethal force being the very last resort.

Yeah, I agree that the cities they visited here were a little too small for a real comparison. They should have met with police from stockholm, malmö, oslo and so. Was a good overall procedural side by side, though. And, our police in sweden carry the guns instead of lock them up. As long ss they are well trained, I think it is a good idea. Our police apparently take two years of courses to be police compared to the american saying it was six months. I didn't know it took so long time here either.

The same film maker made one about comparing prison systems, too. Haven't watched that one yet.
Hope you feel better!

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:44 pm**

Vraith wrote:A physical confrontation was probably completely unnecessary in this case...and the throttling was definitely so. [/color]

Perhaps it was unnecessary to touch the guy's neck at all. I don't know. How would you take down a 300 lb man? I'm only 155 lbs and 5'7" myself. I don't think I could have done it without getting him off balance in some other way (e.g. tripping), which would have knocked him over and possibly caused his head to hit the concrete. A headlock actually protects his head in this case.

As for whether a physical confrontation was necessary, that question goes to whether or not you accept that an arrest was necessary. Let's say it was (or you can argue against the points I've already made on that issue). How would you arrest this man without a physical confrontation if he wouldn't comply? Please explain.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:13 pm**

That's the problem. That attitude on their part. He didn't need to be "taken down". We agree that they were not acting in self-defense. Which makes their reaction an overreaction. Just because they could have used more violent means, doesn't mean they shouldn't have used less violent means. They were the only ones being violent to any degree.

No, as I've said, nothing has given me the impression that they were trying to hurt, much less kill, him. He did the wrong thing, and they overreacted. I don't think they should face criminal charges. But they should be better trained.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:40 pm**

Zarathustra wrote: How would you arrest this man without a physical confrontation if he wouldn't comply? Please explain.

Lots of folk don't want to comply. Many say they won't...they plead or refuse or both, just like Garner.
But if you take some time, they can almost always be talked down...especially in the circumstances that existed. I don't care if it takes an hour or two to do it [but it usually doesn't], it's better than a dead guy.

Physically taking someone down should be the last resort...not the first, or the second, or the "getting bored/annoyed talking to this guy" resort.

[as an aside---at 5-7, your chances of correctly applying a safe hold around the neck of a guy that tall are basically zero. It's not a good, let alone best, option.]

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:31 pm**

Vraith wrote:Lots of folk don't want to comply. Many say they won't...they plead or refuse or both, just like Garner.
But if you take some time, they can almost always be talked down...especially in the circumstances that existed. I don't care if it takes an hour or two to do it [but it usually doesn't], it's better than a dead guy.

This is unrealistic. The over-abundance of caution isn't necessary, because most people don't die from having people tackle them. We'd have to outlaw football, if this were the case. If the cops spent a couple hours trying to talk a guy into pretty-please putting on the cuffs, rapists and murders would still raping and murdering in the meantime. Cops aren't an infinite resource. You can't pay them to stand around sweet talking a person who is resisting arrest. This is ludicrous, Vraith. Yes, it's better than a dead guy. But you can't operate on the assumption that people are going to die from cops performing routine cop actions, otherwise we'd tie their hands and paralyze them with our naïve expectations.

Vraith wrote:Physically taking someone down should be the last resort...not the first, or the second, or the "getting bored/annoyed talking to this guy" resort.

Arresting someone should be the last resort. But once we empower our enforcers to arrest, force is automatically part of the equation. Sure, they should give you the chance to surrender before busting down your door and grenading your kids while you sleep. But the cops have to assume a noncompliant person could get violent, even if they're not currently doing so. A belligerent attitude can quickly escalate, endangering the cops and ultimately the perp, as they escalate their response. If they had allowed this guy to continue escalating his verbal resistance, then his physical evasion, to the point of shoving/pushing the cops, that would have justified busting out the clubs or worse. Granted, he ended up dying, which is the worst possible result. But that was an accident no one could have predicted.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:49 pm**

Yes, the police have to assume a noncompliant person could get violent, even if they're not currently doing so. But they should not treat him as though he already has gotten violent, or as though it is a fact that he will. They outnumbered him significantly, and are fairly well armed. One would assume they have at least a small bit of training in fighting, although that might be a false assumption. The police had not yet raised their voices. Couldn't Garner's reaction of pulling his arms out of their hands have been met with a very loud and clear explanation of the imminent consequences he would face if he did not immediately do as they said? Was it not worth trying on someone who was not being remotely violent? Shouldn't there be a difference in how the police handle someone who is not being compliant and someone who is being violent? Not so much "sweet talking" a person who is resisting arrest as very clearly and sternly warning someone who is resisting arrest peacefully?

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:03 pm**

Zarathustra wrote: The over-abundance of caution isn't necessary, because most people don't die from having people tackle them.

Here's the rub, and everything else is quibbling.
An over-abundance of caution on the part of people who have an over-abundance of power and an over-abundance of immunity from responsibility for consequences is absolutely necessary.

There are a limited number of control points in any and all situations like this.
And we have eliminated any accountability at all for almost all of them already.

It's bullshit.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:00 pm**

When are police going to start carrying tranq guns with them? Trying to deal with an unruly suspect? *pfft* Hit them with 10cc of valium or thorazine then wait a few minutes and they will be much more compliant. What about screechers, the panels which emit sound at 16000 Hz and 16002 Hz thus hitting the subject with 2 Hz and 32002 Hz? The headache will drop them to the ground, after which they are more easily subdued. I thought that is why the cutting edge non-lethal tech was being developed, so police won't accidentally injure or kill people they are trying to arrest.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:26 pm**

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:When are police going to start carrying tranq guns with them? Trying to deal with an unruly suspect? *pfft* Hit them with 10cc of valium or thorazine then wait a few minutes and they will be much more compliant. What about screechers, the panels which emit sound at 16000 Hz and 16002 Hz thus hitting the subject with 2 Hz and 32002 Hz? The headache will drop them to the ground, after which they are more easily subdued. I thought that is why the cutting edge non-lethal tech was being developed, so police won't accidentally injure or kill people they are trying to arrest.

Cameras and training. This way when they have to use force to arrest a suspect, they can go back and look at the recording, much like the NFL does game tape, and see what worked, what was done right, and what was either done wrong or could have been done better. The recording can exonerate a "brutality" charge, or support one as required. (cameras on both officers, and the police vehicle.)

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:37 pm**

RR,

We also need a caveat that if an officer's camera repeatedly "malfunctions" during controversial encounters the officer needs to be presumed to have disabled the camera and acted outside the scope of their authority.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:06 pm**

SerScot wrote:RR,

We also need a caveat that if an officer's camera repeatedly "malfunctions" during controversial encounters the officer needs to be presumed to have disabled the camera and acted outside the scope of their authority.

No, we need the caveat that EVERY time your camera malfunctions, we presume you turned it off, and every thing you say is bullshit.

Related, kinda, unbelievable stupids if the numbers are right:
75 million to buy 50000 body cams. And that's only "cost sharing/price matching"...that 75 mill. is 1/2 the cost, the rest footed by the state/city/locals.
WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAT????!!!!
By the time anything like this is approved [at least months, even if Rep's agree] you can outfit 50 times that many people for half the price with Google Glass. [and Glass is ten times more useful that the shitty design of Cop-Tech.]

Oh, here's some MORE fun stuff: [I haven't checked, yet, the legal technicalities...but FWIW]:
Garner didn't have any "illegal" cigarettes. [or pot, or a gun, or anything else]
He also didn't have any, or not a sufficient number, in any of the OTHER cigarette crimes he's supposedly charged with.
Garner wasn't actually the person "businesses" had complained about.
The "business" that complained [about someone who MIGHT have been him] DOES sell illegal smokes.

Y'all enjoy.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:43 pm**

Vraith wrote: you can outfit 50 times that many people for half the price with Google Glass. [and Glass is ten times more useful that the shitty design of Cop-Tech.]

Since the company I work for is partnering with Google glass on this technology, that will help pay for part of my salary.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:19 pm**

SoulBiter wrote:
Vraith wrote: you can outfit 50 times that many people for half the price with Google Glass. [and Glass is ten times more useful that the shitty design of Cop-Tech.]

Since the company I work for is partnering with Google glass on this technology, that will help pay for part of my salary.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!! I take it all BACK! If it is good for SB, I MUST be evil!

Kevin's Watch

The Latest Potentially-Explosive Racially-Charged Murder