No charges for Missouri cop who shot unarmed teenager

[Jimbeaux]

irocfan said:

King said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

Would any of that happened if he allowed himself to be cuffed ?

Very possibly yes.

You're making the assumption that, had he accepted cuffs, he'd have been treated well. I'd say there's evidence to the contrary. They didn't restrain him according to proper procedures, what makes you believe they'd have stuck to proper procedures once he was cuffed?

well 30ish previous arrests would seem to indicate that he hadn't been strangled before...

Excellent point.

[Jimbeaux]

unrepentant said:

Our local police chief did a town hall last week in an African American area of the city to discuss residents concerns about the police.

He told the audience that "when talking to an officer, people should always be respectful and have their palms open and their hands up"!!!!

That's how I do it if I encounter one in a potentially tense situation / area. I am not black but have a decent tan.

[Jimbeaux]

King said:

irocfan said:

well 30ish previous arrests would seem to indicate that he hadn't been strangled before...

No it doesn't. You don't know anything about how those arrests were carried out. Maybe he was refusing to be cuffed because he'd been maltreated, or even choked, before. Moreover, you're finding him guilty by referring to his prior arrests, which isn't admissible in either a UK or US court.

The man wasn't presenting a threat to anyone. Given more time and a policeman with better negociating skills he might have been persuaded to accept being cuffed. If he continued to refuse to be arrested, he should have been restrained legally. Instead he was attacked and illegally choked to death over a 50 cent cigarette. If you believe that's acceptable, you need to take a good look at yourself.

I mostly agree with you here. I have said throughout this thread that he should have at least been indicted. However, as to the 50 cent cig thing; NYC follows what is known as the "Broken Window" policing policy. That states that small infractions, allowed to pass will become habit and grow to larger infractions, etc. In addition, most who commit the minor crimes are usually the ones who also commit the more severe crimes. Bottom line is that all infractions are treated with equal scrutiny and adherence to the statutes. That is why crime in NYC is so much lower than 25-30 years ago.

[King Cnut]

Jimbeaux said:

Proper procedure was follwed; the female supervisor standing there made sure of that. SInce race always is an issue on PH, I'll mention she was black as well. Had the cuffs went on, no, he would not have continued to be treated rough. You really do constantly go over the top don't you?

An illegal choke hold is 'proper procedure', you say?

You have no evidence to suggest he wouldn't have been mistreated once the cuffs went on. That's pure supposition on your part.

I didn't mention that the supervisor was black. It only became an issue because you brought it up.

[KareemK]

Corpulent Tosser said:

DeanR32 said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

DeanR32 said:

When the amount of officers it took to get him on the floor, achieved that goal and got him on the floor, let go of his neck!

Is that unreasonable to expect?

What is your natural, instinctive reaction to being choked?

Would any of that happened if he allowed himself to be cuffed ?

That's a lightweight counter argument

On the contrary, when investigating an incident you do a root cause analysis, the root causes were:
1 Him getting himself into a situation where the police became involved.
2 Police escalating the situation.
3 The deceased not cooperating with the police.

That is certainly how I see it.

Your analysis of the incident is flawed.

It was:

1. Him getting himself into a situation where the police became involved and instinctively refusing to be handcuffed.

2. He being assualted by the 5 or 6 Police officers whilst being choked to death.

Only an apologist for police brutality could come up with your flawed timeline but then again that appears to be you in nutshell.

[Jimbeaux]

King said:

Jimbeaux said:

Proper procedure was follwed; the female supervisor standing there made sure of that. SInce race always is an issue on PH, I'll mention she was black as well. Had the cuffs went on, no, he would not have continued to be treated rough. You really do constantly go over the top don't you?

An illegal choke hold is 'proper procedure', you say?

You have no evidence to suggest he wouldn't have been mistreated once the cuffs went on. That's pure supposition on your part.

I didn't mention that the supervisor was black. It only became an issue because you brought it up.

The supervisor says a chokehold was not used when he was on the ground.

The race of the supervisor was brought up by the dead man's sister when she stated this was not a race issue; it had already been brought up, thank you.

I am only using supposition? Of course I am, what do you think you were doing when you proclaimed he would have still been roughed up had he accepted the cuffs? You are too easy...tiring / boring.

[Corpulent Tosser]

KareemK said:

Your analysis of the incident is flawed.

It was:

1. Him getting himself into a situation where the police became involved and instinctively refusing to be handcuffed.

2. He being assualted by the 5 or 6 Police officers whilst being choked to death.

Only an apologist for police brutality could come up with your flawed timeline but then again that appears to be you in nutshell.

Instictively refusing to be handcuffed, what kind of intinctive behavour is that ? Bullst !

Me in a nutshell, well I am a person who takes personal responsibility very seriously, and abhor the 'everyone else is to blame' culture that has crept into society, we should all take responibility for our actions and omissions.

Clearly you are part of that culture.

[King Cnut]

Jimbeaux said:

Bottom line is that all infractions are treated with equal scrutiny and adherence to the statutes. That is why crime in NYC is so much lower than 25-30 years ago.

Whilst 'Broken Windows' may have some positive benefits, it also suits the police agenda ("look at us we're doing something!"). It's also a 'low hanging fruit' policy, it's easy to deal with most of this kind of stuff and it makes good PR. However, it completely tends to mask and avoid all sorts of middle class clerical crime; leaving the impression that it's only poor people that commit crime; and, consequently, bringing more policing down on the poor.

A dead horse rots from both the ahole and the head, you seem only able to see the ahole.

[anonymous-user]

King said:

An illegal choke hold is 'proper procedure', you say?

It's not "illegal". You need to be precise with your language. Analysis has suggested the manual for the relevant force is ambiguous in some respects.

More importantly, an "approved" technique or not, using force in the law isn't prescribed like in a binary way i.e. "doing X is illegal, doing Y is legal". It's much more fluid.

KareemK said:

Only an apologist for police brutality could come up with your flawed timeline but then again that appears to be you in nutshell.

Why is it being "an apologist" to take the opposing view?

Were the jury, who've made a judgement based on the full evidence, apologists, too?

[Jimbeaux]

King said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bottom line is that all infractions are treated with equal scrutiny and adherence to the statutes. That is why crime in NYC is so much lower than 25-30 years ago.

Whilst 'Broken Windows' may have some positive benefits, it also suits the police agenda ("look at us we're doing something!"). It's also a 'low hanging fruit' policy, it's easy to deal with most of this kind of stuff and it makes good PR. However, it completely tends to mask and avoid all sorts of middle class clerical crime; leaving the impression that it's only poor people that commit crime; and, consequently, bringing more policing down on the poor.

A dead horse rots from both the ahole and the head, you seem only able to see the ahole.

Yea, yea,

[King Cnut]

La Liga said:

King said:

An illegal choke hold is 'proper procedure', you say?

It's not "illegal". You need to be precise with your language. Analysis has suggested the manual for the relevant force is ambiguous in some respects.

More importantly, an "approved" technique or not, using force in the law isn't prescribed like in a binary way i.e. "doing X is illegal, doing Y is legal". It's much more fluid.

Very good. Using an ambiguous manual (viewed in hindsight) to mount an argument based on ambiguity.

Commentators refer to chokeholds being both 'banned' and 'illegal'. The chokehold in question was, according to the medical examiner, a homicidal act.

Next time you're being strangled by the NYPD, you might want to ponder the ambiguity of it all.

[Jimbeaux]

King said:

La Liga said:

King said:

An illegal choke hold is 'proper procedure', you say?

It's not "illegal". You need to be precise with your language. Analysis has suggested the manual for the relevant force is ambiguous in some respects.

More importantly, an "approved" technique or not, using force in the law isn't prescribed like in a binary way i.e. "doing X is illegal, doing Y is legal". It's much more fluid.

Very good. Using an ambiguous manual (viewed in hindsight) to mount an argument based on ambiguity.

Commentators refer to chokeholds being both 'banned' and 'illegal'. The chokehold in question was, according to the medical examiner, a homicidal act.

Next time you're being strangled by the NYPD, you might want to ponder the ambiguity of it all.

Troll.

[King Cnut]

Jimbeaux said:

Troll.

Whilst you here you are on a UK based forum telling us what we should think and - by accusing me of being a troll - attempting to silence my freedom of expression.

The outcomes may be dissimilar but your behaviour mirrors that of a drone attack: an attempt to silence someone you disagree with by any means available. You're much closer to Obama than you thought.

[Jimbeaux]

King said:

Jimbeaux said:

Troll.

Whilst you here you are on a UK based forum telling us what we should think and - by accusing me of being a troll - attempting to silence my freedom of expression.

The outcomes may be dissimilar but your behaviour mirrors that of a drone attack: an attempt to silence someone you disagree with by any means available. You're much closer to Obama than you thought.

We are quite close. Troll.

[KareemK]

Corpulent Tosser said:

Clearly you are part of that culture.

And clearly you are an idiot.

[hidetheelephants]

Jimbeaux said:

King said:

irocfan said:

well 30ish previous arrests would seem to indicate that he hadn't been strangled before...

No it doesn't. You don't know anything about how those arrests were carried out. Maybe he was refusing to be cuffed because he'd been maltreated, or even choked, before. Moreover, you're finding him guilty by referring to his prior arrests, which isn't admissible in either a UK or US court.

The man wasn't presenting a threat to anyone. Given more time and a policeman with better negociating skills he might have been persuaded to accept being cuffed. If he continued to refuse to be arrested, he should have been restrained legally. Instead he was attacked and illegally choked to death over a 50 cent cigarette. If you believe that's acceptable, you need to take a good look at yourself.

I mostly agree with you here. I have said throughout this thread that he should have at least been indicted. However, as to the 50 cent cig thing; NYC follows what is known as the "Broken Window" policing policy. That states that small infractions, allowed to pass will become habit and grow to larger infractions, etc. In addition, most who commit the minor crimes are usually the ones who also commit the more severe crimes. Bottom line is that all infractions are treated with equal scrutiny and adherence to the statutes. That is why crime in NYC is so much lower than 25-30 years ago.

In the UK this would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, and the police wouldn't be turning up at all; council/municipal retail licence issues are of no interest to them. A retailer in breach would be either fined or have their trading licence removed. What value criminalising the issue brings is unclear, other than it gives the police more jobs to do. Arresting a trader for selling single cigarettes is draconian, as are the licence restrictions preventing it.

The Broken Windows theory is debatable, crime rates dropped in that period even where it wasn't operated as a policing policy.

[anonymous-user]

King said:

Next time you're being strangled by the NYPD, you might want to ponder the ambiguity of it all.

There was nothing ambiguous about the jury's decision, who considered all the aspects of the incident, anchored against the law in which the police are required to operate, was there?

You may want binary simplicity with an action and how it relates to the law, but it's not as simple as that as I've explained.

[Corpulent Tosser]

KareemK said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

Clearly you are part of that culture.

And clearly you are an idiot.

If pointing out that you seem to lack an understanding of personal responsibility makes me an idiot then so be it.

[unrepentant]

Fun story for the aplologists here. A Wakulla County, Florida cop was suspended after saying "damn cockroaches, squash 'em all" on Facebook in reference to African Americans. He was swiftly joined by four colleagues from the same police department who were also suspended for racist posts online.

Lo and behold KKK tags have now been sprayed on 3 local churches with predominantly black congregations! No racists in that police department then!



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/...

[AreOut]

of course there are racists, american police counts almost million people and if only 1 out of 100 is a racist that gives 10 thousands of those