This again, only different. Kind of. Follow

I think it could be helpful if the cops didn't have to 'start' with the assumption that every teenage boy out on the streets is carrying a loaded gun.

Helps weed out the undesirables, and allow for the use of deadly force to be always justified (He could have been reaching for a gun).

There would totally be less school shootings if the lunch lady was manning an M2.

I think that turning events like this into issues of race doesn't help the underlying issue one bit. In both cases, the police would have acted identically to a white subject engaged in the same behavior. If the issue is about whether police procedures could be bettered so as to reduce the likelihood of fatalities during confrontations like these, then we can and should discuss those and might actually get some positive outcome. By turning it into a race issue, all we get are riots and angry people. Angry for all the wrong reasons.

The issue is the default seems to be deadly force. Because they can. And many people seem to be just OK with that, which is another issue. It also should be noted that the article I linked didn't even mention black or white until half way through it.

I think the Brown case is a bad one for these protesters to hang their hat on, because of what the guy did prior to the shooting.

But when a cop decides to use a choke hold which crushes the man's throat who then dies because he can't breath, that's a problem. And yes I've watched the rest of the video prior to the arrest attempt, where the man is swearing at the cops (about various things) and resisting (non violently, just verbally. I don't recall him ever attacking or physically assaulting the cops) the orders from the cops. But none of that should authorize deadly force.

Talked with a coworker just the other day, and the 12 year old shot in Cleveland. His only comment was "Serves him right, he should have listened to the cop."

Cops should be held to a higher standard, they should be, and are, trained to handle situations without resorting to these methods that end up with the other person dead. Regardless of what color they are.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2014 8:53pm by TirithRR

Sure. And the overwhelming majority of times where police are involved in some kind of physical altercation with a subject, no one gets killed. We can and should investigate the cases where someone does die, but we basically toss any chance of this out the window if we focus on the color of the person rather than the events which occurred.

Personally, in the Brown case, I'm not sure what the cop could have done differently. Barring a bizarre demand that cops just not confront jaywalkers if they are black, or that they not draw their gun when physically attacked, I don't think there's much we could change. As to the choking case, that has the potential to result in changes to police hold procedures. According to the cop, he used the hold he was taught to use in his training. And while that hold looks like a choke hold on the video to random viewers, it's not actually about choking the person. If you know anything about holds, it's about catching the person's chin and holding it to the side, immobilizing the head and making it difficult for the person to move his body. It should not result in any constriction of the airways. It's possible the man had some kind of condition (like being quite overweight for one) that caused him to have difficulty breathing when put in such a position, or just when placed face down on the ground.

It's still something the police can adjust their training to deal with, but it's a lot easier to do that if the issue is not turned into a racial conflict. Because once that happens, you put the other sides back against the wall, and any admission that something they did was wrong becomes an admission of racism. It's counter productive IMO.

When you say "acted identically" would you be willing to elaborate? What do you think happened?

I have read a good portion of gj transcript ( I may have even linked it ) and I am not convinced to supports cop's version of the story.

Or are we immediately siding with his version?

Evidence..pfft..it could be used to prove anything.

I am half-waiting fot Gbaji to tell me that it didn't matter he was black ( but it does matter that he behaved black ).

I jaywalk directly in front of police cars *all the time*. Have never been stopped.

Eric Garner was exercising civil disobedience. Not violence. He was "resisting arrest" only in the same sense that protesters do when police arrest them for blocking traffic and they hold their arms stiff instead of putting them behind their back. It's crazy that cops respond to this with the same urgency and violence that they do to an armed felon. Why not just talk to the guy for 15 minutes? Tell him "I'm going to put these handcuffs on you" and them keep talking to him until he calms down. He'll relent eventually. He wasn't being violent, wasn't making threats, wasn't running away. But to cops, any pushback against their authority is tantamount to assaulting them.

You're a privileged white boy in Southern California. You don't know jack about the rest of America. How can you? You don't get your news from anywhere, remember?

White cop+young black man=yes; every single time for our totally unbiased best buddy gbaji

I mean "acted identically". As in, whatever Brown did, this hypothetical white version of him did. What part of the phrase is confusing you?




What do you think happened? Let's pretend that whatever version of events you believe is true. Now, replace Brown with a white male of the same age and size, who did exactly the same actions that Brown did. Now. Ask yourself if the cop would have done anything differently.

I don't believe that the cop would have. You're free to disagree though. I just happen to think it's a crappy argument to blame it all on skin color purely because one of the people involved was black. It's utterly circular and meaningless to do that. Why don't you point out specifically what you think happened and what you think the cop would have done differently if the subject in question had been white instead of black.

Can you do that? And I don't want generalities. Be specific. Not sure why I'm asking this because the last thread where I asked you to provide an example to support your case, you just tap danced around for two pages. I expect more of the same.



Not immediately, no. However, the physical evidence supports his story and not the "hands up, don't shoot" version. The eye witness accounts largely corroborate his story as well. How much do you need to accept that his version is at least mostly accurate on the core details?

After actually reading the transcripts:

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a person would choose to act hostile to a single cop or even attack them. I have hung out with several people that (much to the duress of my clean underwear) have been more than willing to attack police at the drop of a hat.
Many reports I have read seem to find this so shocking.. they obviously are living in an ivory tower.

That being said.. it should be the mandate of every police man (every carrying a gun really) to be the adult in any situation and to anticipate events not only tactically but emotionally as well.
If some kid starts disrespecting you.. OH WELL. It's comes with the job, man. There should be no hostile reactions of any kind unless physical threat is imminent. I work with police. I was told of a well-known psychological phenomenon (at least in Baltimore City police!) in which an officer in uniform will have a severely hostile reaction when disrespected while wearing a badge and a uniform.. which I guess isn't prevalent in plain clothes officers. Apparently it is a measurable and treatable "syndrome" although I can't find anything else about it.

Either way.. I think this officer was responsible for putting himself in danger by willfully escalating the situation. I expect a punk to act like a punk.. but I also expect an officer of the law to not act like a petulant teenager.



Edited, Dec 4th 2014 6:55pm by Kelvyquayo