njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,766
|
Post by njhoya78 on Dec 11, 2014 17:40:51 GMT -5
I also applaud the posters here for having a rational, respectful discussion about this encompassing multiple nuanced positions about the issue. We're capable of doing so, Dan. We just usually choose not to do so!
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Dec 11, 2014 18:13:02 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with student-athletes being interested in current events and taking a stand. Plus, freedom of speech is a pillar of our democracy. On the other hand, I don't necessarily like the slogans used recently to protest (Can't Breathe, or Hands Up; don't shoot), and I don't like the sensationalist and biased coverage by most media outlets. The accepted theme is cops are racist, violent thugs, and as someone who has worked in many different law enforcement positions and venues, I find it dishonest and inflammatory. It also encourages disobedience and violence directed at law enforcement. The Rams players, and our players, claimed they're not taking sides but those slogans are very clear in their anti-law enforcement stance. The NY case and the Ferguson cases are completely different. One has video of a departmental violation, and the other has neither. If you weren't actually there to witness the incident, or you're not an expert on use of force case law, and you've never worked as a law enforcement officer in a dangerous position, I find it hard to believe you're qualified to comment on police use of force in general. The ongoing theme promoted by the media would dispute this, but from my first-hand experiences in the past two decades police use of excessive force has declined dramatically. In fact, police in many cities are afraid to use any force due to the expected backlash and damage to their careers, even if the force was legal and justified. Police are mostly underpaid, underappreciated, and always second guessed by the media and "community activists." People just don't understand how difficult it is to make split-second, life or death decisions in the middle of an adrenaline-filled violent encounter. I have been in several of these situations personally, and unless you've been in that situation you just don't understand what it's like. Luckily, I made the decision not to shoot and it turned out to be the right decision. Interestingly enough, if you had asked me immediately after those situations what race the suspect was, I couldn't have told you. I remember every detail of those situations like it was yesterday (the weather, the clothes the suspect was wearing, the house, the neighborhood, his dog, my colleagues, what his hands were doing, etc.) but I couldn't tell you what race they were. And that's why it makes me so angry to hear people accuse these cops of being racist, because I can assure you that every cop in the middle of a life and death violent encounter is not thinking at all about the race of the guy attacking him. That being said, there are definitely bad cops out there. Just like every profession or cross-section of society, there will be decent/honest individuals and those who aren't. Due to stringent background checks, psychological checks, polygraphs, and intense scrutiny, my personal opinion is that law enforcement has much fewer bad eggs than most professions. Believe me, those in law enforcement want the bad eggs removed more than anyone. But contrary to popular belief, you actually need evidence to prosecute someone which is why the Ferguson case did not result in an indictment. Case law and every law enforcement agency's use of force policy supports using deadly force when a large, violent individual attacks you and tries to take your gun (Which may or may not have been the case in Ferguson). The bottom line is no one will get hurt if you don't attack a cop. In the NY case, both the suspect and the officer were at fault. The fact he was selling illegal cigarettes (a minor crime) is a red herring. The original reason he was stopped is irrelevant; the suspect escalated the situation by refusing lawful commands of the officers and initiating a physical altercation. However, the officer was definitely at fault for using an unapproved control technique. Again, I support the decision of our players to exercise their rights and take a stand on an important issue. It's just disappointing to me personally to see the manner in which they took that stand. In my opinion, it promotes stereotyping of law enforcement and encourages more distrust between cops and the community. This is an interesting post, one that I think I might disagree with on certain points, but definitely makes me think. I guess here's where I disagree with you. First, while you're right that if one isn't an expert on the use of force case law or a law enforcement officer, it's hard to argue about whether a particular use of force was over the line of permissibility. But the debate, to me, is broader than that, and covers where we as a society want that line to be. The police, by its very nature, serves the polity. The arguments arising out of Ferguson include lots of concern about what can seem to be a protocol of escalation, or maybe more properly, no incentive to de-escalate. There would never be an indictment under the current law in the shooting of Kajieme Powell or John Crawford. But my opinion of both of those those (especially the latter) is that there was wide berth to de-escalate that situation on the part of the police, and maybe that's something we should demand of people we grant license to use force. It seems that cops aren't disincentivized from escalating a situations and then using force in response to a perceived loss of control of that situation. Second, and more directly relevant to the Eric Garner situation, is that there is ostensibly regulations/laws about the permissible use of force, but they're not being applied across the board. I think the Ferguson grand jury decision was wrong--I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that a jury would have convicted Darren Wilson, but the job of the grand jury is not to sit there as a fact finder. That's for the jury in an actual trial. The Garner decision shook me both as a minority and as a lawyer. Whether or not both the suspect and the officer were at fault and whether or not you could argue that Garner escalated the situation by refusing lawful commands, he's killed on tape with a guy's arm around his throat. To say that there wasn't even probable cause to indict the officer boggles my mind. Again, if a jury wanted to believe that this was a "wrestling move" not a chokehold (or a wrestling move called a chokehold) or that the officer acted permissibly throughout the encounter, that's one thing. But to not even put it before a jury is unfathomable to me. I know that indictments against officers are once in a blue moon things--I just thought that this was once in a blue moon. And for what it's worth, you're not supposed to be able to use deadly force where someone is simply refusing lawful commands. And third, I take your point that good cops want the bad eggs out just as much as we do. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much institutional pressure to actually get those guys out. I don't know if that's because of a code of silence, or because of police unions, or what, but there's a serious problem if the guys like those in this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/) don't get removed as unfit for duty. If the bad eggs aren't subject to prosecution and they don't lose their jobs, then where are the consequences? And if there are no consequences, what changes this behavior?
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 11, 2014 18:52:18 GMT -5
Chep3, thanks for the thoughtful post. Even though we might disagree, I appreciate your respectful comments. And that I think is one of the main things missing in this debate: honest, fact-based arguments, without devolving into insults and stereotypes.
I was honestly surprised the NY officer was not indicted, but I was not surprised the Ferguson officer was not indicted. The evidence they did have certainly showed he was telling the truth in his statement, while at the same time discrediting some of the witnesses.
Please understand that the vast majority of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers hope they go their whole careers without have to use deadly force. While American law enforcement is certainly not perfect, I think it's appropriate to point out it'd be difficult to find a more professional and restrained group when compared to law enforcement agencies around the world. For those claiming there is an "epidemic" of police brutality and excessive force in the U.S., I would ask them to live in Mexico for a few months and then see how their perspective changes. Or Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc. Even democracies like S. Korea, Taiwan, and others still use shockingly brutal police tactics without the protection of civil rights or the media.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Dec 11, 2014 19:36:53 GMT -5
For those claiming there is an "epidemic" of police brutality and excessive force in the U.S., I would ask them to live in Mexico for a few months and then see how their perspective changes. Or Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc. Even democracies like S. Korea, Taiwan, and others still use shockingly brutal police tactics without the protection of civil rights or the media. So god forbid we try to make our country better (read: have police not kill people for no good reason) when there are other countries that have it worse!
|
|
This Just In
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Bold Prediction: The Hoyas will win at least 1 BE game in 2023.
Posts: 10,592
|
Post by This Just In on Dec 11, 2014 20:00:03 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with student-athletes being interested in current events and taking a stand. Plus, freedom of speech is a pillar of our democracy. On the other hand, I don't necessarily like the slogans used recently to protest (Can't Breathe, or Hands Up; don't shoot), and I don't like the sensationalist and biased coverage by most media outlets. The accepted theme is cops are racist, violent thugs, and as someone who has worked in many different law enforcement positions and venues, I find it dishonest and inflammatory. It also encourages disobedience and violence directed at law enforcement. The Rams players, and our players, claimed they're not taking sides but those slogans are very clear in their anti-law enforcement stance. The NY case and the Ferguson cases are completely different. One has video of a departmental violation, and the other has neither. If you weren't actually there to witness the incident, or you're not an expert on use of force case law, and you've never worked as a law enforcement officer in a dangerous position, I find it hard to believe you're qualified to comment on police use of force in general. The ongoing theme promoted by the media would dispute this, but from my first-hand experiences in the past two decades police use of excessive force has declined dramatically. In fact, police in many cities are afraid to use any force due to the expected backlash and damage to their careers, even if the force was legal and justified. Police are mostly underpaid, underappreciated, and always second guessed by the media and "community activists." People just don't understand how difficult it is to make split-second, life or death decisions in the middle of an adrenaline-filled violent encounter. I have been in several of these situations personally, and unless you've been in that situation you just don't understand what it's like. Luckily, I made the decision not to shoot and it turned out to be the right decision. Interestingly enough, if you had asked me immediately after those situations what race the suspect was, I couldn't have told you. I remember every detail of those situations like it was yesterday (the weather, the clothes the suspect was wearing, the house, the neighborhood, his dog, my colleagues, what his hands were doing, etc.) but I couldn't tell you what race they were. And that's why it makes me so angry to hear people accuse these cops of being racist, because I can assure you that every cop in the middle of a life and death violent encounter is not thinking at all about the race of the guy attacking him. That being said, there are definitely bad cops out there. Just like every profession or cross-section of society, there will be decent/honest individuals and those who aren't. Due to stringent background checks, psychological checks, polygraphs, and intense scrutiny, my personal opinion is that law enforcement has much fewer bad eggs than most professions. Believe me, those in law enforcement want the bad eggs removed more than anyone. But contrary to popular belief, you actually need evidence to prosecute someone which is why the Ferguson case did not result in an indictment. Case law and every law enforcement agency's use of force policy supports using deadly force when a large, violent individual attacks you and tries to take your gun (Which may or may not have been the case in Ferguson). The bottom line is no one will get hurt if you don't attack a cop. In the NY case, both the suspect and the officer were at fault. The fact he was selling illegal cigarettes (a minor crime) is a red herring. The original reason he was stopped is irrelevant; the suspect escalated the situation by refusing lawful commands of the officers and initiating a physical altercation. However, the officer was definitely at fault for using an unapproved control technique. Again, I support the decision of our players to exercise their rights and take a stand on an important issue. It's just disappointing to me personally to see the manner in which they took that stand. In my opinion, it promotes stereotyping of law enforcement and encourages more distrust between cops and the community. This is an interesting post, one that I think I might disagree with on certain points, but definitely makes me think. I guess here's where I disagree with you. First, while you're right that if one isn't an expert on the use of force case law or a law enforcement officer, it's hard to argue about whether a particular use of force was over the line of permissibility. But the debate, to me, is broader than that, and covers where we as a society want that line to be. The police, by its very nature, serves the polity. The arguments arising out of Ferguson include lots of concern about what can seem to be a protocol of escalation, or maybe more properly, no incentive to de-escalate. There would never be an indictment under the current law in the shooting of Kajieme Powell or John Crawford. But my opinion of both of those those (especially the latter) is that there was wide berth to de-escalate that situation on the part of the police, and maybe that's something we should demand of people we grant license to use force. It seems that cops aren't disincentivized from escalating a situations and then using force in response to a perceived loss of control of that situation. Second, and more directly relevant to the Eric Garner situation, is that there is ostensibly regulations/laws about the permissible use of force, but they're not being applied across the board. I think the Ferguson grand jury decision was wrong--I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that a jury would have convicted Darren Wilson, but the job of the grand jury is not to sit there as a fact finder. That's for the jury in an actual trial. The Garner decision shook me both as a minority and as a lawyer. Whether or not both the suspect and the officer were at fault and whether or not you could argue that Garner escalated the situation by refusing lawful commands, he's killed on tape with a guy's arm around his throat. To say that there wasn't even probable cause to indict the officer boggles my mind. Again, if a jury wanted to believe that this was a "wrestling move" not a chokehold (or a wrestling move called a chokehold) or that the officer acted permissibly throughout the encounter, that's one thing. But to not even put it before a jury is unfathomable to me. I know that indictments against officers are once in a blue moon things--I just thought that this was once in a blue moon. And for what it's worth, you're not supposed to be able to use deadly force where someone is simply refusing lawful commands. And third, I take your point that good cops want the bad eggs out just as much as we do. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much institutional pressure to actually get those guys out. I don't know if that's because of a code of silence, or because of police unions, or what, but there's a serious problem if the guys like those in this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/) don't get removed as unfit for duty. If the bad eggs aren't subject to prosecution and they don't lose their jobs, then where are the consequences? And if there are no consequences, what changes this behavior? In the case of John Crawford III, who was shot in Walmart, the man who made the call admitted it to being a prank call after the matter. I wonder if charges will be brought against him since the phone call ended up in the death of another unarmed African-American? Moving on to Kajieme Powell, I wonder if it is the policy of the St. Louis Police Department to handcuff a person after they have been shot to death as shown in the video?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 11, 2014 20:32:55 GMT -5
This made me think...did FS1's broadcast show or mention the shirts at all? They led off the post-game show with it. It was on the pre-game show as well.
|
|
|
Post by cosmopolitanhoya on Dec 11, 2014 20:52:07 GMT -5
Not really Georgetown's faculties and alums are some of the most well-known liberal politicians. School has always had more left wing sentiment than the right while I was there. Georgetown is an academic institution and students have right to express their opinions. I think it gets on the softer side when student athletes do it, rather than the professional players. I didn't realize only liberals and left wingers thought choking someone to death is tragic. I always knew Bush was a liberal. Same with Fox News, bunch of left wingers. Yeah Fox News sends condolence to Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin as well 0_0 Regardless of the victim's race, he lost his life over something that should not have happened to him. Sure, people like to say that happens ALL THE TIME to people and they complain that people like them only get the spotlight due to their races. Still these cases are tragic - losing ones' lives and all of them could have been avoided.
|
|
|
Post by cuvahoya on Dec 11, 2014 22:34:53 GMT -5
I have 3 kids who are "millenials." I frequently hear that millenials are lazy, self-absorbed, spoiled, entitled, etc. My kids and their friends are good people, so I can't say those descriptions of millennials ring true to me. However, the perception of millenials in society is real. I have been a Georgetown basketball fan for over 40 years, in large part because my Dad, who was an educator and loved sports, was so impressed by what he heard John Thompson, Jr. was doing in D.C. at Georgetown - educating and coaching kids to be the best men they could be. I have never been more proud to be a Georgetown fan than I was when I attended the game last night. Well, actually, I think I was just as happy when they won the title in 1984, but I don't want to ruin a good line, so I will stick with last night as being my proudest moment. These "millenials", who happen to play basketball, used their most powerful asset, their minds, and thoughtfully decided to express themselves clearly, succinctly and respectfully. As fans, we all want, to varying degrees, wins, Big East Titles and National Championships. However, I want to root for Georgetown players who are bright, thoughtful independent thinkers. You may disagree with the message and the venue, but you cannot seriously disagree with their prerogative to express themselves or the manner in which they did so. They are not gladiators trying to slay Orangemen and Jayhawks solely for our pleasure. They are youngsters, striving to become men. Either we support that mission as many of us say we do, or we don't. What's past is prologue, and the legacy of the program depends on continuing to educate young men (preferably young men who prevail in basketball games). I have lived in New York, and have experienced my share of negative incidents solely because of my skin color, so the Garner case especially reasonates with me and my family as I am sure it does with many of the players and their families. If yesterday was neither the time nor the place, then when should they have expressed themselves? Well done young Hoyas.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 10:21:00 GMT -5
They are not gladiators trying to slay Orangemen and Jayhawks solely for our pleasure. I have been reading this thread trying to find a way to express this thought in response to the idea that the venue is inappropriate and why I disagree with that idea. Thank you for articulating it so well.
|
|
Talos
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 612
|
Post by Talos on Dec 12, 2014 10:49:58 GMT -5
For those claiming there is an "epidemic" of police brutality and excessive force in the U.S., I would ask them to live in Mexico for a few months and then see how their perspective changes. Or Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc. Even democracies like S. Korea, Taiwan, and others still use shockingly brutal police tactics without the protection of civil rights or the media. So god forbid we try to make our country better (read: have police not kill people for no good reason) when there are other countries that have it worse! I didn't mean to imply that things are ok just because we're better than Mexico. As I said in my original post, we are not perfect and should strive to get better but it's also important to get a little perspective. I don't think it helps to advance the intellectual debate by making gross and inaccurate generalizations that "police kill people for no good reason." There are millions of interactions between police and Americans each day, and these situations of alleged excessive force happen very rarely. And in many of these cases sensationalized by the media (like Ferguson), the actual facts and evidence do not support an indictment for excessive force. In very few places in the world do law enforcement officers have the combination of dealing with the verbal and physical abuse, and dangers, that they do in the U.S. while still maintaining professionalism and restraint. But where is the outrage when a police officer is killed in the line of duty? There are far more law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty than "innocent victims" killed by the police. Where is the outrage over the massive increase in violence directed at federal/state/local law enforcement along the border? How would you like to go into work each day knowing you were going to get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 12, 2014 11:10:12 GMT -5
So god forbid we try to make our country better (read: have police not kill people for no good reason) when there are other countries that have it worse! I didn't mean to imply that things are ok just because we're better than Mexico. As I said in my original post, we are not perfect and should strive to get better but it's also important to get a little perspective. I don't think it helps to advance the intellectual debate by making gross and inaccurate generalizations that "police kill people for no good reason." There are millions of interactions between police and Americans each day, and these situations of alleged excessive force happen very rarely. And in many of these cases sensationalized by the media (like Ferguson), the actual facts and evidence do not support an indictment for excessive force. In very few places in the world do law enforcement officers have the combination of dealing with the verbal and physical abuse, and dangers, that they do in the U.S. while still maintaining professionalism and restraint. But where is the outrage when a police officer is killed in the line of duty? There are far more law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty than "innocent victims" killed by the police. Where is the outrage over the massive increase in violence directed at federal/state/local law enforcement along the border? How would you like to go into work each day knowing you were going to get shot at and not be allowed to shoot back? In the case of an officer killed in the line of duty, there are massive actions taken to apply justice. There are protests because justice has not been served and will not be served. When an officer is killed, what do you suppose people should protest? If you are right and most cops are good people, restrained and professional, then the police community could end this in a heartbeat. They simply need to stop their policy of protecting bad and dirty cops. I have a hard time calling someone a good person when it seems (and I could be wrong) that most officers know of these situations, perhaps have even been there, but instead of denouncing their less ethical colleagues for their actions, seem to do anything to defend them. The police have the power to stop and minimize this and do not. I have a hard time calling anyone who has the ability to stop an awful thing from occurring and does not a good person.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Dec 12, 2014 11:46:26 GMT -5
People just don't understand how difficult it is to make split-second, life or death decisions in the middle of an adrenaline-filled violent encounter. There were no split-second, adrenaline-filled, life or death decisions to be made in the Garner case until Pantaleo decided to choke him. There were six officers standing around one guy to arrest him for selling loose cigarettes on a busy street in broad daylight. my personal opinion is that law enforcement has much fewer bad eggs than most professions. Believe me, those in law enforcement want the bad eggs removed more than anyone. I'm reasonably sure every public sector union says exactly this and then stonewalls every attempt at actually accomplishing it. The bottom line is no one will get hurt if you don't attack a cop. As posted in another thread, this is not true. The fact that he was placed on paid leave is an excellent example of my second point above.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,657
|
Post by seaweed on Dec 12, 2014 11:49:57 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 12, 2014 12:23:56 GMT -5
The NY case and the Ferguson cases are completely different. No they are not. One pivotal thread binds them. Two Black males died at the hands of the police, and neither deserved that fate. Neither officer was indicted. but I was not surprised the Ferguson officer was not indicted. The evidence they did have certainly showed he was telling the truth in his statement, Sorry, but this is not true. While Wilson's and witnesses' testimony aligned in some areas, they differed vastly in others. Besides, Wilson's version sounded like a fairy tale. A jury should have decided if Wilson's testimony was flawed in any way, not the grand jury. Talos, I appreciate your impassioned defense of law enforcement. You chose not to employ deadly force, but too many others don't make the decision you did. Too frequently when they do not, a black male dies. That is a problem in this country. Both Kajieme Powell and John Crawford should be alive today. While you defend law enforcement, I hope you understand why multiracial protests are occurring in cities around the country to point out these inequities.
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Dec 12, 2014 14:01:56 GMT -5
I am glad to see that JT, back in the corner of the room, has never lost his ability to put the punctuation mark on the end of the sentence.
It is so rewarding to me, regardless of where one stands on these issues, to see a post game press conference for the Georgetown UNIVERSITY basketball team be about somthing more substantial than points, rebounds & defensive schemes. As lichoya always says - it's about so much more than basketball - and it's great to see these young men show that the pricipal is alive and well at our university.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Dec 12, 2014 14:43:07 GMT -5
".....As posted in another thread, this is not true. The fact that he was placed on paid leave is an excellent example of my second point above....." thefreethoughtproject.com/man-asks-cop-nicely-stop-blocking-traffic-cop-stomps-head-beats/Wow. That's revolting. That's proof of the most blatant kind of police brutality: violence upon citizens under the shield of the state that is purely the result not of fear of danger but rather from being annoyed that extreme deference wasn't paid. If that video doesn't make you wretch you are an anti-American fascist. Resisting Arrest is massively vague cover for cops to arrest you for no reason at all until when they start beating you if you don't basically cuff yourself instantly...well bingo! There's your crime! When a cop brings in someone and the only charge they can even make is resisting arrest, shouldn't that be immediately suspicious?
|
|
birdman
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 708
|
Post by birdman on Dec 12, 2014 15:16:00 GMT -5
Please understand that the vast majority of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers hope they go their whole careers without have to use deadly force. While American law enforcement is certainly not perfect, I think it's appropriate to point out it'd be difficult to find a more professional and restrained group when compared to law enforcement agencies around the world. For those claiming there is an "epidemic" of police brutality and excessive force in the U.S., I would ask them to live in Mexico for a few months and then see how their perspective changes. Or Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc. Even democracies like S. Korea, Taiwan, and others still use shockingly brutal police tactics without the protection of civil rights or the media.I disagree with most of your opinions on this broad topic of discussion, but I admire the calm and reasoned manner in which you've stated your argument. I also agree with you that I wouldn't want to see "good" law enforcement officers lumped in and/or endangered in reaction to the acts of bad cops, although I think you and I would differ on where the blame for that generalization would lie. It's always refreshing to see actual discourse and reason in a debate, particularly through the sensitivity-warping medium of the internet. That said, your argument about other countries' police forces is irrelevant. No one in the discussion - the commenters, the good cops, the bad cops, or the dead men at the heart of this debate - lived in any of the countries you listed. The U.S. government is (supposedly) designed to be accountable to its citizenry and that includes law enforcement. That's what makes our country great (some might call it "better" than those nations you listed). And when a section of society sees repeated instances where law enforcement isn't accountable to them, they're goddamn right to be mad. Arguing that people shouldn't be upset and appalled by excessive police tactics in Missouri, Ohio, and New York because "cops are worse in Yemen" is like telling someone they shouldn't complain about the winter cold in Chicago because of the frigid temperatures in the vacuum of space. It willfully misses the point.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Dec 12, 2014 17:20:03 GMT -5
The NY case and the Ferguson cases are completely different. No they are not. One pivotal thread binds them. Two Black males died at the hands of the police, and neither deserved that fate. Neither officer was indicted. but I was not surprised the Ferguson officer was not indicted. The evidence they did have certainly showed he was telling the truth in his statement, Sorry, but this is not true. While Wilson's and witnesses' testimony aligned in some areas, they differed vastly in others. Besides, Wilson's version sounded like a fairy tale. A jury should have decided if Wilson's testimony was flawed in any way, not the grand jury. I'm sorry, but were you on the grand jury in Clayton County? Did you review all of the evidence submitted to the grand jury? If not, then calling Wilson's testimony a fairy tale is pretty weak. You're being overly general to say "While Wilson's and witnesses' testimony aligned in some areas, they differed vastly in others." Yes, not all the witnesses agreed with Officer Wilson's testimony. However, from everything I've read and heard, the testimony from the witnesses that corroborated Officer Wilson were more credible AND were consistent with the physical evidence. The witnesses offering testimony different from Officer Wilson were largely not credible. I'm tired of hearing over and over that "Well, there was conflicting testimony, so an indictment should have been handed up." No, that's not the standard. Conflicting testimony does not mean the matter automatically goes to a trial. For that to be true, one would have to argue that only in the absence of conflicting evidence can a grand jury decline to indict. That makes no sense. Simply because "probable cause" is a lower evidentiary standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean there was no evidentiary standard at all.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Dec 12, 2014 18:19:27 GMT -5
No they are not. One pivotal thread binds them. Two Black males died at the hands of the police, and neither deserved that fate. Neither officer was indicted. Sorry, but this is not true. While Wilson's and witnesses' testimony aligned in some areas, they differed vastly in others. Besides, Wilson's version sounded like a fairy tale. A jury should have decided if Wilson's testimony was flawed in any way, not the grand jury. I'm sorry, but were you on the grand jury in Clayton County? Did you review all of the evidence submitted to the grand jury? If not, then calling Wilson's testimony a fairy tale is pretty weak. You're being overly general to say "While Wilson's and witnesses' testimony aligned in some areas, they differed vastly in others." Yes, not all the witnesses agreed with Officer Wilson's testimony. However, from everything I've read and heard, the testimony from the witnesses that corroborated Officer Wilson were more credible AND were consistent with the physical evidence. The witnesses offering testimony different from Officer Wilson were largely not credible. I'm tired of hearing over and over that "Well, there was conflicting testimony, so an indictment should have been handed up." No, that's not the standard. Conflicting testimony does not mean the matter automatically goes to a trial. For that to be true, one would have to argue that only in the absence of conflicting evidence can a grand jury decline to indict. That makes no sense. Simply because "probable cause" is a lower evidentiary standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean there was no evidentiary standard at all. Yep, he's back. Nice to see you haven't gone Mr. Softee on us. And yes, I did read pages and pages of the documents presented to the grand jury that were released. You can be tired of whatever you want. That's your right. The bottom line is that an unarmed kid was shot from 153 feet by an officer. That officer was allowed to skate. Those are the facts. They are not in dispute. The tale Wilson told was fanciful. Michael Brown died needlessly, and Wilson should have gone to trial. My opinion.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Dec 12, 2014 20:47:04 GMT -5
The extreme anger than many have doesnt just come from the deaths of these men (and boys) but also from the attitude expressed by the police and other authorities. The attitude that because it was the police that did this it must be justified. That almost by just claiming they feared for their life its ok to turn to violence (Brown) or they claim they were just following procedure (Garner). As if this alleviates their responsibility to remember they are dealing with someone's life here and not just an exercise in a training drill.
Its never OK or GOOD when someone dies. It may be justified but its never morally GOOD and we should continually look for ways to improve systems so that fewer people die against their will, regardless of the circumstances.
In regards to how few interactions result in violence from police. Yes, undoubtably it is a small number of the total interactions, but that is not what is important. Whats important is the number of interactions that do turn violent that didnt need to turn violent and right not it seems like most of them.
|
|