The Glade 4.0

Diamondeye:

You do realize you sound like an apologist. You're quick to assert that protest organizers knowingly included violent and otherwise problematic individuals in their protests, and that said organizers use non-violent protesters as human shields. That requires a level of sophistication and organization not typically present in modern day America. It also requires an America wherein people believe themselves responsible for their own actions. That America no longer exists.

More importantly, you suggest that the government can abrogate my rights because of someone else's actions. It doesn't work that way except in the eyes of police departments.

The Ferguson Police Department was censured by the government of Missouri for its behavior during the first round of protests and nonsense in Ferguson. The Ferguson Police Department engaged in bad behavior.

But, your occupational bias gives you a huge blind spot on these issues. You always have a justification and rationalization for why the police violate civil liberties. You NEVER consider the police capable of being stupid. Well, just so happens that police officers are people, and people are prone to stupid.

_________________

now at the risk of becoming a complete bag of dicks....

Khross, Elmo, Rori, RD, Raf.... how many brown people have you killed today? How many were chokeheld to death? How many were 12 year olds shot as your car was puling up to a park?

me: I have a temper and I have killed none. Why is it so easy for me, but so difficult for the police in so many locations?

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

By the way have people seen this video? It's worth watching. Skip to the 36 second mark.

you told me to grab my license... this is obviously a case of DWB. Slam dunk the perp is screwed.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Dude. That's absolutely unacceptable. To open fire in that situation? Jesus ****. That cop should be in jail.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Hold on, I've gotta be missing something here. DE, can you tell us why it was okay for the police officer to open fire at a gas station?

Obviously, this is an open and shut case of complying too quickly.

_________________

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You also do not need to make arrests. It isn't "difficult" for the police in "so many locations"; what looks to you like a fit of temper is what it's like to arrest someone who is resisting. What you think is resisting arrest or what an arrest is almost certainly not the reality, and the police should not change what they are doing just to make it more palatable on video.

As for "chokeholded to death" contrary to what the media is reporting, the man in Staten Island wasn't chokeholded to death. He died of positional asphyxiation due to a combination of his size, and medical issues including athsma. This is according to the medical examiner report (not in those exact words). The video is highly troubling, but not for the reasons the press and the public think.

The hold you see is not a chokehold. If you observe the video carefully, you will see that when the officer initially applies it he only has one arm around the man's neck and the hand is in front of the chin. His other arm is up vertically under the man's right arm to restrain it so that he can't throw a punch. This is a technique known as a "fight breakup technique" and it was designed to be used initially by 2 officers, 1 behind each person in a fight. The idea is that the officers simultaneously apply it to both people to stop the fight.

For that purpose it's really completely unsuitable because it relies on the idea that both members of the fight will cock their arms to swing at the same time and the officers will be able to coordinate perfectly. In reality, street or prison fights are not like boxing matches, and people do not co-operate with techniques so well, so actually trying to do it is likely to result in one person getting restrained and then getting cold-cocked by the other because the other officer wasn't able to apply it at the right time - if either is able to do it at all.

Moving on - and I am going from memory here because I cannot look back at the video right now - once Garner is on the ground and starts saying "I can't breathe" the officer applying the hold releases it after a few seconds, apparently once he realizes what Garner is saying. By that time the hold had more or less turned into something kind of like a chokehold, mainly because that's what happens when you struggle with someone. Techniques do not stay neat and clean. Fights are not like martial arts matches. By that time, Garner is well restrained by the other officers. More importantly - People who cannot breathe cannot tell you they can't breathe. They certainly cannot tell you that 11 times in a row. At that point, Garner obviously could breathe, just not very well.

Now moving ahead, this is where things do get rather disturbing. The only video I've seen pretty much ends at the point where he is on the ground. It's well-known - and all officers are trained on this in the basic academy - that a restrained person should, as soon as possible, be returned to a seated or standing position. In addition to the risk of accidents, this is why it's a good idea to seat belt someone in that you are transporting - if they fall over and lay on the back seat of a cruiser for a long period of time, some people, like Garner, may suffocate.

I suspect that, after the video we saw, while Garner was laying on the ground the officers were standing around letting their adrenaline go down, shooing bystanders who want to stand 5 feet away back, and generally ignoring Garner who by this time was likely to be starting to actually suffocate (which we know because A) he died and B) the medical examiner's report basically says so). During this time is probably when he actually died, or else on the way to the hospital since he was pronounced dead on arrival. Obviously at some point one or more of the officers noted that he was in distress and summoned an ambulance, but they did so too late.

This is what I find distressing, and it highlights a problem with video. The video focuses on the visually spectacular initial takendown and what appears to be a "chokehold" to an untrained observer - then it stops before the part that most likely actually killed the guy. The hold the officer had, applied for the length of time it was applied, could not by itself have come close to killing anyone, and during the time it was applied Garner, while evidently having trouble breathing still could so so - which we know because he was talking.

The Grand Jury declined to indict - and the Grand Jury in New York only requires 12 votes out of 23 to indict - most likely because of the facts I just cited. The wrong officer was taken to the Grand Jury and for the wrong thing. I am pretty sure there's a case to be had against another officer for negligent homicide, but they tried to charge the wrong guy for the wrong thing. This is not to say that anyone should necessarily be convicted of it because we are lacking all the information about what happens after the end of the video, but there is most likely a legitimate avenue to at least try to prosecute.

there are a number of things that should happen here:

1) In the words of a jurist I can't remember now, the ban on selling of untaxed loose cigarettes is an "uncommonly silly law". If New York insists on this law they should change it so that it is a non-arrest offense (that is, you get a ticket). This law is there to protect the sensibilities of merchants who think this guy selling a few cigarettes here and there is harming their business

2) The city should be sued by the family for wrongful death.

3) All of the officers should be disciplined by the department depending on the facts regarding their actions, possibly including termination for some or all of them, again depending on those facts.

4) The prosecutor should look into negligent homicide charges against the other officers. I don't know that the officer applying the hold would necessarily be excused from such an investigation, except that they already pissed that away by trying to indict him for the wrong thing. I'm not sure of all the double jeopardy issues involved, but I do not believe you can repeatedly send someone to the Grand Jury for the same offense - or for lesser included offenses of the same offense.

5) Most everyone else should shut the **** up about chokeholds. This video is a perfect example of why video is a problem. People think "But it's RIGHT THERE!" and then they demonstrate they don't actually know what they're looking at. If Garner were not athsmatic, he'd likely not have died. That, right there, makes prosecution or discipline of the officers for the takedown pretty much impossible when compounded by the fact that he did resist arrest (he pulled away from the officers) and that while this might seem excessive to the casual observer, ending a situation right away by taking complete control and preventing the subject from doing anything worse (and the officers have no idea what he might do next; throughout the time up to the actual takedown he was becoming MORE agitated, and for a pretty typical reason - "I'm a black man, and what I'm doing isn't serious, so why are you hassling me?"

6) The entire Grand Jury process needs to be re-looked at across the country. Not because Wilson and the guy in NYC whose name I can't remember weren't indicted - but because Grand Juries indict everyone else with far too much regularity. The officers were treated fairly by a jury of their peers - it's everyone else that isn't. There is no point in a probable cause process that essentially always finds probable cause. I think that the prosecutor should have to present all available evidence. The defense should not be involved - that would just make it another trial, but the Prosecutor should not be permitted to withhold exculpatory evidence, even if he is allowed to present everything in a light most favorable to the Prosecution.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't know. I can't see the video right now, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I'll look at it when I get home. However, the fact that you're bringing up "at a gas station" as if that's some automatic reason why police shouldn't shoot does not give me optimism that this will be anything other than typical Glade armchair quarterback outrage over nothing.

Lex posting the video doesn't give me much optimism either; we are talking about the guy who thought a video relating a DUI arrest to the Iraq war for no apparent reason was a legitimate indictment of the police, even when the narrator couldn't correctly identify what state the issue happened in.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

They absolutely can bring the evidence before a Grand Jury again. It has nothing to do with Double Jeopardy, as there was no trial.

I'm surprised the Grand Jury doesn't vote to indict just based on the fact that the ME ruled it a homicide.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

After further investigation, this does appear to be the case although there may be caveats.



Homicide merely means the death was caused by another person. It is a manner of death. The other 4 are: Natural, Accidental, Suicide, and Undetermined. If "homicide" was a reason to indict, every person that ever killed someone in self defense would have been indicted. A homicide is not necessarily criminal.

If those involved were not police, they would have had no business trying to arrest him for selling untaxed cigarettes in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Like I said, I was surprised. When the ME says that the death is a homicide due to compression of the neck and chest one would think that an indictment would follow (if only for criminally negligent homicide or reckless endangerment). Since we don't know what charges the DA allowed to be considered and since he gave the rest of the police immunity, I shouldn't have been.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Cop asks black guy to show him his license, guy checks his pocket, doesn't have it, turns to his car to get it, cop immediately pulls out his gun and opens fire. The reason I said gas station was because it's a public area, high foot traffic and you know, risk of explosion. The cop discharged his weapon with innocent bystanders and their vehicles directly in his line of fire for no reason other than a black guy looked in his truck.

If Garner had been an otherwise healthy gentlemen, I would understand you being surprised. For a man with athsma and cardiac issues, there shouldn't be much surprise.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'll get to the rest when I can look at the video, but the risk of explosion is trivial, at most. Bullets causing sparks and setting fire to things is Hollywood stuff. In fact, when hand tools are used in areas where there's a risk that a spark could cause an explosion or fire, copper - which is what bullets are coated with - are frequently used. Lead is also a soft metal and unlikely to spark - and this doesn't even take into account any safety features of the gas station itself. The risk of explosion is not worthy of any consideration at all next to those other matters you mentioned.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I wasn't surprised despite his health. I was surprised with full knowledge of his health. It's a long-established legal doctrine that you take your victims as you find them; their health has no bearing on your negligence. i.e. The health of the victim does not mitigate your negligent actions. I'd imagine that the jurors weren't informed of that either, though.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I am beginning to think my friend has the right of it... any time you are approached by a police officer drop to your knees and yell loudly while crying "please do not kill me I am unarmed"

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Which has nothing to do with it. I already acknowledged the negligence - the problem is that the negligence that happened had nothing to do with the matter that was taken before the Grand Jury.

The officers were not negligent in trying to take Garner down or in making an arrest in the first place; they were negligent (so far as I can tell) in allowing him to positionally asphyxiate. The prosecutor foolishly gave the other officers immunity in order to take the officer that did the takedown to the Grand Jury.

There's also the fact that the police, once they place someone under arrest, have an obligation to take that person into custody. Garner resisted. That's both contributory negligence on the civil side and criminal behavior on his part. Had he not done so, none of this would have happened.

Police officers cannot be judged through A) hindsight or B) based on information they could not reasonably have been aware of at the time - also long-established legal fact. You don't need to worry about me being aware of any legal principles Vindi; I may not be a lawyer but if there's a legal principle you're aware of chances are pretty much certain I know it too.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Out of a country of 300+ million people, AT MOST a thousand or so are killed by police every year.

In 2012





Disregarding completely the 80.2% of officers who were attacked by an unarmed person, that gives us 19.8% of 52,901 assaults on officers that involved a weapon. 0.000092% of officers were killed by a citizen.

In other words, police are killed by citizens at a rate almost thirty times higher relative to their population than the rate at which they kill citizens. They are killed by citizens at a rate almost ten times higher than the rate I estimated they fire at citizens regardless if anyone was killed.

So no, your friend doesn't have the right of it. The problem we have in this country is not with the police. The problems we have are a sensationalistic press, combined with a populace that all thinks they are entitled to act as

52,901 x.198 = 10474 officers in 2012 who were attacked with a weapon of some sort.

Stipulations:
1) Officer shootings are underreported to the FBI. We know of a reported rate of just under 500. We will therefore assume that about twice that number, or a thousand, annually, actually occur.
2) Any person attacked with a weapon is being threatened with deadly force and has the right to defend themselves with same. We are applying the same standards to police as to civilians.
3) Although the NYC case does not involve any weapons on either side, almost all persons killed by police are killed with firearms.

1000 is 9.5% of 10474.

Police, therefore, kill someone with a firearm less than 10% of the time that they themselves are attacked with a weapon. When we accept that some police shootings are of unarmed people, like Michael Brown, or are unjustified, the actual shooting rate of people that attack cops with weapons is well under 10%.

Furthermore, the present U.S population is estimated at about 316 million. ~0.0000031% of the population is killed by police every year.

Even if the police shoot an additional 2000 people that survive every year (and there's no reason to think the number is anywhere near that high) we are still talking about 0.0000093% or so being shot at by a cop. We are talking about the police shooting at someone, whe4ther or not that person was killed, in less than one third of the incidents in which they would be clearly justified in doing so.

Let's talk about officers feloniously killed. Not died in accidents or anything else, but killed by a person.

48 were killed in 2012. That's 0.000092% of the 520,047 officers - meaning officers are killed by citizens at a rate 30 times higher than they kill citizens, relative to the populations in question.

Moreover, according to the FBI website and easily determined by dividing assaults by officers:



Roughly 10% of officers are assaulted in a given year. Your chance of being assaulted by a police officer in any given year is far, far lower than 10%.

We don't have a problem with the police in this country. We have some problem police. We have a problem with a sensationalistic press, a minority community that refuses to acknowledge its own problems, and a large number of people who are being brought face-to-face with the reality that police work is often ugly and dirty by nature.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Oh, and now that we're starting to see video from after Garner was cuffed and on the ground, he lays there for almost 4 minutes without being sat up before an officer finally checks his pulse. That's your negligence, right there, not the takedown. Simply sitting him up might have been enough to save his life. 30 seconds of delay instead of 4 minutes might have been enough.

Whichever officer there was the highest ranking, or had the highest seniority if they were all of the same rank should have been the one before the GJ, not the one that did the takedown. All of the rest of the officers should be disciplined, and probably at least some of them should be fired.

If you want to ***** about police actions in this case, at least ***** about the right ones.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In fact, copper is never used for hand tools, it is too soft. Brass is what is used in environnments where sparking would be a danger.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

The mere fact of advocating that the policemen's negligence should be mitigated because of the man's health begs the question. Police officers can and should be judged on their actions just like every other citizen. No citizen's negligence is mitigated by a victim's affliction. Police officers do not get legal protection from charges of negligence by law. They do, however, get protection from prosecution by those in the legal system.

Please don't presume to know me. Boalt Hall gave me a pretty good understanding of the law. When one is unable to discern the implications of Double Jeopardy, at a glance, as it pertains to a Grand Jury, belies any claim one might make about their expansive legal knowledge.

The video that you're just now seeing has been out for months, and is the basis of many people's arguments (including mine). The one who did the take down was present and did nothing (even less than the poking and prodding done by the other officers) for the whole time Garner was unconscious. There's no way any of us can say the one who did the take down shouldn't have been in front of the Grand Jury, but it's plainly obvious that he's not the only one who should have been brought up for indictment.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'd also like to point out that the NYPD manual information that I could find bans the use of choke holds that restrict breathing. A properly applied 'arterial restraint' (aka. Blood choke, same family as the sleeper hold) do nothing to restrict breathing at all.


Which seems to indicate that as long as the pressure to the throat doesn't impede breathing, it is legal.

Its mostly to both subject and 'attacker''s advantage to use any form of blood choke over any air choke.

a) Unconsciousness/incapacitation time for an air choke takes 60-120 seconds during which time the subject is completely active. Unconsciousness/incapacitation for a properly applied blood choke occurs within 10-20 seconds at the high end. This means the danger to the restraining officer is far far less.
b) The trachea is quite fragile. Crushing it during some air-chokes is a real danger which can lead to asphyxiation,
c) During a air choke, the entire body becomes oxygen deprived. Oxygen levels in the brain take much longer to be restored as the entire body must be reoxygenated.
During a blood choke, oxygen levels in the brain are restored almost immediately, with far far less chance of damage.
d) During an air choke, you cannot breathe. That means you can't verbally call for help or surrender.

No one with any training goes for an air choke. As DE said, this man died of positional asphyxiation, not a choke hold.

To be fair, one of the first things they tell you in CCW courses with regards to interacting with police is to identify yourself as a CCW-license holder (with hands in view, as is the normal recommendation for traffic stops), immediately declare whether or not you have a weapon nearby (and if so, disclose its location), and when asked to retrieve something, and always pre-narrate your actions when you need to move your hands to reach for a requested item. "My license is in my wallet, which is in my back right pocket. I'll get it now, if you direct me to."

Of course, that black people have to suffer the increased tension and edginess that CCW carriers do because both are strongly presumed to be armed is kind of the objection.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades