[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.

[SKJAM!]

"Picking their incident more carefully" seems a tricky business to me.  From what I've seen of the "white guy with gun kills unarmed black person" protests, the incidents that spark the most outrage are those where the authorities seemingly go out of their way in the early going to make it clear that the killer is going to get off scot-free.  And it only twists the knife if the authorities label the reaction to an outraging event as the problem to be solved, rather than the outraging event itself.

 

And honestly, what would it take to convince a jury (grand or otherwise) that the white police officer (or wannabe) was committing murder of an unarmed black person?  There's always some sort of excuse that could be used.

[Agent X]

"Picking their incident more carefully" seems a tricky business to me.  From what I've seen of the "white guy with gun kills unarmed black person" protests, the incidents that spark the most outrage are those where the authorities seemingly go out of their way in the early going to make it clear that the killer is going to get off scot-free.  And it only twists the knife if the authorities label the reaction to an outraging event as the problem to be solved, rather than the outraging event itself.

 

And honestly, what would it take to convince a jury (grand or otherwise) that the white police officer (or wannabe) was committing murder of an unarmed black person?  There's always some sort of excuse that could be used.

Does that mean you pick the wrong incident and portray it as something it isn't to make your point? Which destroys your credibility with people who aren't so invested in your cause that they think there are other things that matter too and makes you sound delusional when you circle around inconvenient facts. I want to rein in police brutality as much as anyone. I'm just not interest in making scapegoats to do it.

[SKJAM!]

It's more that you don't know until hindsight kicks in.  Especially if, as in the Ferguson case, the authorities are sure acting like there's something untoward going on.  Most of the evidence that convinced the grand jury not to indict was not available to the public until afterwards (and some of it is pretty sketchy) so the eyewitnesses that sounded credible were taken at more or less face value.

[Agent X]

It's more that you don't know until hindsight kicks in.  Especially if, as in the Ferguson case, the authorities are sure acting like there's something untoward going on.  Most of the evidence that convinced the grand jury not to indict was not available to the public until afterwards (and some of it is pretty sketchy) so the eyewitnesses that sounded credible were taken at more or less face value.

That's the sad thing. The witnesses didn't sound particularly credible to me. We've got the running buddy who was with him when he's shoving a small man around. We've got a couple of women who may have seen some or all of it and who changed their story immediately after the preliminary autopsy. This stuff wasn't hard to find but people's CONFIRMATION BIAS set in and they started tuning anything out that didn't fit with the bias. Michael Brown is a sweet, lovable kid (who is huge and commits violent crimes against a storekeeper). Michael Brown's hands were up (but other witnesses said they weren't). The cop tried to pull Michael Brown into the cop car through the window (which one really ought to visualize before they don't get a little skeptical). So you get knuckleheads making stuff up about what they thought they saw. Then you've got the Law and Order crew who ignore the fact that Wilson's explanation of why he got so close to Brown is... stupid. One of them decides to take it further and put out a pic of some other victim and pass it off as the cop.

 

Meanwhile, everyone forms an opinion without doing any digging. If they want to push police brutality they go listen to MSNBC and read DailyKos and get the spin they desperately want. If they want to push a hero cop puts down a black thug they go to Fox News and read DrudgeReport and the Blaze to get the spin they desperately want. Eventually, when it all comes out, the wrong side (in this case the more wrong side) has invested too much and now they have to pretend they didn't screw up. So they chant, "Hands up, don't shoot!" when it's pretty obvious from forensics that scenario didn't happen. It's pathetic. Every few years somebody gets shot down by multiple cops without having done anything and without a weapon and it doesn't catch fire like this did, a case which should have had everybody be careful about jumping to conclusions as the first factoids dripped in.

[薔薇語]

TYT Story about the Justice Department and their assessment of the Cleveland police department.

 

La Rose. 

[薔薇語]

Here is some good news:

 

The jerk that put a law abiding young woman in a chokehold for not respecting his 'authoritah' has resigned. He should have been fired and lost any benefits he had, but at least he isn't wearing the uniform anymore. Good riddance to filthy trash. 

 

La Rose. 

[Badger]

I consider Al Sharpton an scandal-chasing race-riot hunter. Sure, he isn't the cause of the incidents and he isn't the one who is inciting riots but he is basically "laying it out" so that things can happen or he is approving it.

Hey, I can understand that people have to get violent to make society notice injustice.

BUT: You have to see who is the enemy and who is not.

If I see (mostly but not exclusively) black folks protesting angrily in the street because of the unjustified and unneccessary death of a black man making end smeet with selling cigarettes in a park in New York City I do understand their justifies outrage - they kept it peacefully.

That was wise, good PR and tactics since nobody attacked them.

Had the NY police attacked peaceful demonstrators and they had defended themselves that would have been totally justified IMO.

 

But the people in Missouri whose idea of "Justive Now! seemed to be to plunder and loot the shops of the people in their own city who had ZERO to do with the killing there, not only did a good job at discrediting the protest (who is - thanks to people like Sharpton - quite aimless and one-side) but also showed the world what lumpen they really are.

 

No, I do not feel sympathy with people who use each and any excuse to loot and shout about "justice" while robbing and stealing from their fellow man.

And peopel like Al Sharpton play the tune to this kind of music. And for that I find him quite despicable, though the causes he involves himself in (is he invited? does he just pop up?) are often not.

But his involvement always turns them away from the centre of the problem and towards his greedy, self-rightous self.

 

Pretty much this

 

Note: I apoligize to any real life  tapeworms I offended.

[Roter Baron]

Judging from the article and video that The Rose posted the training of a lot US police officers seem to consider of armed and unarmed techniques to get a person "down" (alive or dead) and of showing them a few Western and Dirty Harry movies for how and when to apply them - basically whenever you don't get the response you wanna hear or see when you ask a citizen: "Do you have a problem, pillgrim?" or "Do ya feel lucky, punk?"

 

As I said before: Does not primarily seem to be a racist cop force but a Legion of Judge-Dredd-Wanna-Bes that are the root of the problem - and that root is lack of training and accountability and a sense of professionalism, and not spurs clinking and blinking on Main Street at High Nooon.

[Agent X]

Here is some good news:

 

The jerk that put a law abiding young woman in a chokehold for not respecting his 'authoritah' has resigned. He should have been fired and lost any benefits he had, but at least he isn't wearing the uniform anymore. Good riddance to filthy trash. 

 

La Rose. 

Geez, just celebrate the win. There's no need to wish decades of hardship on numbnuts. He resigned to avoid being fired. Good. We don't need to tar and feather him and set the wolves on him.

[Agent X]

Judging from the article and video that The Rose posted the training of a lot US police officers seem to consider of armed and unarmed techniques to get a person "down" (alive or dead) and of showing them a few Western and Dirty Harry movies for how and when to apply them - basically whenever you don't get the response you wanna hear or see when you ask a citizen: "Do you have a problem, pillgrim?" or "Do ya feel lucky, punk?"

 

As I said before: Does not primarily seem to be a racist cop force but a Legion of Judge-Dredd-Wanna-Bes that are the root of the problem - and that root is lack of training and accountability and a sense of professionalism, and not spurs clinking and blinking on Main Street at High Nooon.

That's a pretty good analysis of where quite a few police are. Our system bends over backwards to provide any plausible justification. I remember watching a video on Youtube. A cop car is following a car with two African American males to a fast food restaurant very closely. The brothers (they are brothers) are very aware the cops were tailing them and look annoyed and puzzled by it. They go in to order food. The cops come in behind them and ask them what the problem was. They said they don't know what they are talking about. Eventually, the brothers ask the cops why they are there. The cops say to eat so the brothers turn around to order. Next thing, the cops are demanding ID. The brothers want to know why and the cops don't bother to tell them. Eventually, one cop puts his hands on the chest of one of the brothers and the brother brushes his hands away and steps back. With his hands now spread to a few inches wider than his shoulders but close to his shoulders, palms out, and making no move toward the officer - the cop punches him and then punches his brother. And then it's on. When it was reviewed by Detroit PD they said the officer was justified because when the young man reacted to being pushed by brushing the cop's hands away he assaulted the officer. So, if cops hassle you, get in your face, and start pushing on you WITH NO REASON - and you brush the hand away from your chest - they get to hit you. It's messed up. Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMaB2OkU1TY

[Agent X]

Here's another one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMoTfLykVcA

[薔薇語]

Geez, just celebrate the win. There's no need to wish decades of hardship on numbnuts. He resigned to avoid being fired. Good. We don't need to tar and feather him and set the wolves on him.

 

Oh cry me a river. I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug and I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug with authority. 

 

La Rose. 

[Ragitsu]

They're essentially getting off scott-free.

[Markdoc]

Okay, so in the name of public order you put an individual through a show trial that you know won't go anywhere AND you provide an expectation on the part of the aggrieved that "this is for realz" AND, you know, you sell it too. It's not like you can't charge him without claiming you have a strong enough case. So, when he is found not guilty and the riots REALLY BLOW UP - How's your public order?

"Know won't go anywhere"? Are you implying a fixed trial? A grand jury is not a trial, and with more time, more evidence, and a different procedure, might yield different results. So, you don't need to be certain of a conviction to proceed. The only thing required is "probable cause" - is there a case to answer? I'll admit I don't know. But experience shows, that if there is any doubt, sending a case to court tends to defuse the situation more often than it exacerbates it - even though that's not always the case: there's no certainty in life. A badly-handled trial *might* be as bad as a badly-handled grand jury - but the lack of a trial emphasises the feeling in the community that justice is not being done. That's the real cause of the trouble in Ferguson. This particular shooting is just a trigger - as you note, maybe not even a very good case - for underlying problems.

 

And yes, it would have been hard for the cop in question - but then, so was deciding not to go to trial. He's lost his job and his home, so it's not clear that a trial would have been worse for him. And given the riots after the grand jury decision, it is clear that didn't work too well - an outcome that should have come as a surprise to no-one. So yeah, I think it could have been handled better.

 

Edit: No, actually, stronger than that. Given the pervasive and growing distrust of the police even among ordinary citizens, precisely *because* of the feeling that justice is not being served, I think it was handled really badly. The fact that the usual procedures for a grand jury were significantly altered in this case, indicates that the prosecutor knew what the issues were and fumbled it anyway. He gave the impression - even to me, who tends to give the cops the benefit of the doubt - that he was desperate to avoid a trial. Whether that is true or not, it's impressions and emotions that are fueling this.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Agent X]

"Know won't go anywhere"? Are you implying a fixed trial? A grand jury is not a trial, and with more time, more evidence, and a different procedure, might yield different results. So, you don't need to be certain of a conviction to proceed. The only thing required is "probable cause" - is there a case to answer? I'll admit I don't know. But experience shows, that if there is any doubt, sending a case to court tends to defuse the situation more often than it exacerbates it - even though that's not always the case: there's no certainty in life. A badly-handled trial *might* be as bad as a badly-handled grand jury - but the lack of a trial emphasises the feeling in the community that justice is not being done. That's the real cause of the trouble in Ferguson. This particular shooting is just a trigger - as you note, maybe not even a very good case - for underlying problems.

 

And yes, it would have been hard for the cop in question - but then, so was deciding not to go to trial. He's lost his job and his home, so it's not clear that a trial would have been worse for him. And given the riots after the grand jury decision, it is clear that didn't work too well - an outcome that should have come as a surprise to no-one. So yeah, I think it could have been handled better.

 

Edit: No, actually, stronger than that. Given the pervasive and growing distrust of the police even among ordinary citizens, precisely *because* of the feeling that justice is not being served, I think it was handled really badly. The fact that the usual procedures for a grand jury were significantly altered in this case, indicates that the prosecutor knew what the issues were and fumbled it anyway. He gave the impression - even to me, who tends to give the cops the benefit of the doubt - that he was desperate to avoid a trial. Whether that is true or not, it's impressions and emotions that are fueling this.

 

Cheers, Mark

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

He knew the trial wouldn't go anywhere because it's the Prosecutor's job to know what evidence he needs to get a conviction and it was obvious the evidence wouldn't provide a conviction.

 

I don't buy your contention that trials defuse issues in the first place but I will emphatically say that the outcome of a "no guilty" verdict in a trial over this incident would have sparked as much or more violence. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

 

If you are getting an impression of desperation from the cop because he didn't want to go to trial then you and I live on another planet. If I get accused of something I didn't do and I can quash it before it goes to trial I quash it. Trials are very hard on the soul and occasionally are mishandled. Of course, I won't go parachuting or bungee jumping either.

[Agent X]

Oh cry me a river. I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug and I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug with authority. 

 

La Rose. 

You sound a little bitter. And you're dehumanizing somebody, you know, like some cops do to poor people.

[Badger]

Geez, just celebrate the win. There's no need to wish decades of hardship on numbnuts. He resigned to avoid being fired. Good. We don't need to tar and feather him and set the wolves on him.

The Rose is probably going to post 30 more of these in the next week.  I would advice that the best thing (the best interest for you and him) you can do is just ignore the links for the time being. 

[Badger]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

He knew the trial wouldn't go anywhere because it's the Prosecutor's job to know what evidence he needs to get a conviction and it was obvious the evidence wouldn't provide a conviction.

 

I don't buy your contention that trials defuse issues in the first place but I will emphatically say that the outcome of a "no guilty" verdict in a trial over this incident would have sparked as much or more violence. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

 

If you are getting an impression of desperation from the cop because he didn't want to go to trial then you and I live on another planet. If I get accused of something I didn't do and I can quash it before it goes to trial I quash it. Trials are very hard on the soul and occasionally are mishandled. Of course, I won't go parachuting or bungee jumping either.

 

Well,  I was thinking finances, but yeah, it can also be a hardship to the soul or nerves or your health (sarcasm) but everyone should want their day in court, regardless of whether a ham sandwich should have enough sense to know the trial  is a waste of everyone's time (end sarcasm)

[薔薇語]

You sound a little bitter. And you're dehumanizing somebody, you know, like some cops do to poor people.

 

I am doing many things but dehumanizing is not among them. 

 

I would really like to hear you defend some thug who tries to choke a perfectly innocent person. I mean, come one, that thug shouldn't be 'dehumanized' just because he choked someone. I mean we shouldn't be bitter and should feel empathy for that thug who committed assault on some young woman. And we should really open our hearts to that thug even though he and his partner tried to destroy the only evidence against him ASSAULTING an innocent young person. 

 

If that cop were anything other than a cop he would be in jail right now. But we have a nice and wonderful two tier justice system where you and I go to jail for putting a person in a choke hold and trying to destroy evidence but cops keep all their benefits and are simply asked to kindly go work somewhere else.

 

That isn't justice.

 

La Rose. 

[薔薇語]

The Rose is probably going to post 30 more of these in the next week.  I would advice that the best thing (the best interest for you and him) you can do is just ignore the links for the time being. 

 

 

Oh, I imagine if I actually tried to go looking for cops who were abusing their power I might be able to find 30 links a week. But that is part of the problem. I shouldn't be able to find 30 a week, nor a month, nor a year. I shouldn't even be able to find 30 in a decade. But I could. And not enough people seem to be outraged that we allow thugs to be our police. 

 

Luckily, though, I make it a point to NOT go looking but even I can't ignore big story ones when they pop up - and I live in a different country and am far removed from the sensationalization that you all get. I wonder how bad it would be if I actually lived there still. 

 

La Rose. 

[Roter Baron]

@ The Rose:

The guy lost (or let loose of) his job and as far as I remember the article the young lady is considering to press charges. That is what should happen if you choke somebody with no reason and you are a police officer. Looks okay to me, especially since we do not know what else is coming towards him. Nothing good, I presume.

 

@ Agent X:

Regarding the "Taunt and harass them till they react in a mildly physical way - THEN HIT' EM HARD and get away with it"-cops: What country and century is this this again? Alabama - the 1920s? Dodge City in th 1880s?

No wonder people are increasingly irritated and react irate if behaviour like this is not, say, an everyday occurence but happens more than twice in any given community. per year.

 

By the way: A lot of people have the understanding that Germany is quite extensively policed. In comparison to the USA: Far from it! If I am in Bochum, a neighboring city of about 350,000 (about the size of Pittsburgh) I usually NEVER see a police car. In Pittsburgh I run into police (city, University, Sheriff's Department, sometimes Highway Patrol) almost every third or second block.

As much in a DAY as I see in a YEAR in Germany!

Friends from the US noticed the absence of the omnipresent police force, too.

 

And I still feel pretty save here. Actually, I only became the victim of a crime (a mugging) in Pittsburgh.

And someone broke into my appartment to rob my landlady who lived upstairs.

Oh, and I got into a drug raid once.

On three different stays.

And Pittsburgh is considered one of the safest cities in America.

In Germany: ZILCH in 44 years. If you don't count car accidents (only vehicle damage - and always my fault).

[薔薇語]

Roter Baron, I think it is interesting that you don't see police on a regular basis in Germany. While it has never been my presumption that Germany is strictly policed and it would have never occurred to me that people would assume so, I am just used to seeing police on a regular basis. Actually, here in Japan it is extremely common to see police out and about on a normal day. I probably see more police here than I ever did in the US. But that might be because the police here are designed to be built into communities whereas in my home in the US they are designed to have one or two major headquarters from which everyone works out of. To give you an example, in just a 15 minute bike ride from my house I could visit at least 4 different police 'boxes'. Is this not the case in Germany then? Are you all more like the US in that you have one major depot that houses most police functions for a city / ward / district?

 

As to the police from above getting his come-uppens, I don't think a simple civil suit is enough. Of course if some stranger strangles me on the street and tries to destroy my evidence of it, I will sue them for damages. But I also expect the police to arrest that thug and for there to be a criminal trial. The fact that citizen's only recourse against abusive cops is taking them to civil trials because the criminal justice system has abandoned us is disheartening at the very least. 

 

La Rose. 

 

Edit: Actually, if anyone is curious how many police stations and boxes there are in Japan, just hop on google maps and go to Japan. Then type in 交番 ( kouban ). Most of what pops up will be police boxes. You will think you are looking at a kid with chicken pox, or maybe one with some bad acne. ^^

[Hermit]

I think part of the problem with the police who themselves break the law or abuse their authority merely 'resigning' is there is little to keep them from heading to another area of the country and getting a new job with a new police department. Sure, their background might raise a red flag, but the new department might also just note that they 'quit their job' instead of 'were fired'. So you have Bad Cop #3 get caught using excessive force on year, and quitting. But in three years, he could be wearing another badge doing the same thing all over again.

[Marcus Impudite]

TYT Story about the Justice Department and their assessment of the Cleveland police department.

 

 

La Rose. 

Considering that this is the same state that gave us such pieces of sh*t as Daniel Harless and the rest of the Canton PD, color me not surprised.

[薔薇語]

I think part of the problem with the police who themselves break the law or abuse their authority merely 'resigning' is there is little to keep them from heading to another area of the country and getting a new job with a new police department. Sure, their background might raise a red flag, but the new department might also just note that they 'quit their job' instead of 'were fired'. So you have Bad Cop #3 get caught using excessive force on year, and quitting. But in three years, he could be wearing another badge doing the same thing all over again.

 

 

That sounds kind of like the cop who murdered the Rice boy. He was already under heat for his bad actions at his last job but that didn't stop the next police agency from hiring him. 

 

La Rose.