Indict a Ham sandwich but not a cop

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Typical Ruppert verbal judo.Give your opinion in a long winded dissertation and end it with a caveat that you dont know enough to give an opinion. If I could bet on how your opinion would be framed it would be a single for me in the pick 4. If a chokehold has been banned since the 90's and The cop uses a chokehold and a person dies and it is filmed well that is pretty cut and dry.

I was not aware that the chokehold was banned. I read that the officer said this was a technique that he was trained to do at the academy. If the chokehold is illegal then I would lean towards manslaughter.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I was not aware that the chokehold was banned. I read that the officer said this was a technique that he was trained to do at the academy. If the chokehold is illegal then I would lean towards manslaughter.

The chokehold is banned by NYC Police department policy not by NY State Law. In retrospect the arrestee should have been tased and or maced. It was obvious he wasn't going anywhere w/o a fight and those methods would have obviously been a better choice than taking him down in a choke hold.

[OldDog]

I found this opinion piece thought provoking.

"The Eric Garner case is a reminder that government is force, and more government equals more force."

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/04/...-police-power/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I found this opinion piece thought provoking.

"The Eric Garner case is a reminder that government is force, and more government equals more force."

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/04/...-police-power/

Should have stated, "The Eric Garner case is a reminder that when police tell you to put your hands behind your back, it's not the start of a debate"

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Should have stated, "The Eric Garner case is a reminder that when police tell you to put your hands behind your back, it's not the start of a debate"

Right so let's arrest anyone for any reason and then kill anybody who resists. Good policy.

It's always funny to me how the people who would never in a billion years be even inconvenienced by the cops are the ones who rush the police's defense in every case. Myopia is a hell of a thing.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Right so let's arrest anyone for any reason and then kill anybody who resists. Good policy.

It's always funny to me how the people who would never in a billion years be even inconvenienced by the cops are the ones who rush the police's defense in every case. Myopia is a hell of a thing.

As a country we suffer from Mass lack of empathy

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

As a country we suffer from Mass lack of empathy

As a country we suffer from mass lack of personal and individual responsibility. That and a complete lack of reality either by choice or DNA.

Gerber, though obnoxious, is painfully correct.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Right so let's arrest anyone for any reason and then kill anybody who resists. Good policy.

It's always funny to me how the people who would never in a billion years be even inconvenienced by the cops are the ones who rush the police's defense in every case. Myopia is a hell of a thing.

No, let anyone who gets arrested resist, no matter what the reason is for the arrest.

Anarchy is a hell of a thing.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Cardus

To the nearest zero, of the people who have commented on this death, how many have seen the grand jury testimony?

It's on video. The cop uses a choke hold for 6 seconds max to take him down and then kneels on his head. When the man is repeatedly heard on tape stating he can't breath he is no longer in a choke hold but likely having an asthma attack.

The cop's choke, take-down likely caused the asthma attack but the guy's refusal to cooperate caused the takedown. Wasn't like the cop was playing the knockout game looking for a vulnerable, innocent victim.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I found this opinion piece thought provoking.

"The Eric Garner case is a reminder that government is force, and more government equals more force."

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/04/...-police-power/

imo, this case is a lot less about race, and a lot more about police using excessive force. this guy died because of a cop opting to use a banned chokehold to take down someone possibly selling 'loosies'. sounds like overzealousness to me. did he pose an imminent threat? no. was he running, resisting arrest? no. did the policeman follow procedure? no.

after years of being allowed to do as they wish, it's no surprise that cops have an overall attitude of 'we can do whatever the hell we wish, when we wish, and you all just deal with it'.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

imo, this case is a lot less about race, and a lot more about police using excessive force. this guy died because of a cop opting to use a banned chokehold to take down someone possibly selling 'loosies'. sounds like overzealousness to me. did he pose an imminent threat? no. was he running, resisting arrest? no. did the policeman follow procedure? no.

after years of being allowed to do as they wish, it's no surprise that cops have an overall attitude of 'we can do whatever the hell we wish, when we wish, and you all just deal with it'.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

imo, this case is a lot less about race, and a lot more about police using excessive force.

I can't say whether it does or does not have something to do with the former, but it definitely has something to do with the latter.

[Danzig]

[quote=Cardus;1007986]

Originally Posted by Danzig

imo, this case is a lot less about race, and a lot more about police using excessive force. this guy died because of a cop opting to use a banned chokehold to take down someone possibly selling 'loosies'. sounds like overzealousness to me. did he pose an imminent threat? no. was he running, resisting arrest? no. did the policeman follow procedure? no.

after years of being allowed to do as they wish, it's no surprise that cops have an overall attitude of 'we can do whatever the hell we wish, when we wish, and you all just deal with it'.[/QUOTE]

This is foolish.

no, it's not.
the lack of indictment against this guy is exactly what i'm talking about. cops are supposed to keep the law, not break it and have no consequences.

[dellinger63]

[quote=Danzig;1008008]

Originally Posted by Cardus

no, it's not.
the lack of indictment against this guy is exactly what i'm talking about. cops are supposed to keep the law, not break it and have no consequences.

Excuse her as she is unable to decipher the difference between policy and law much less separate the two.

She's one of those, who were so eloquently defined, by Gruber.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Excuse her as she is unable to decipher the difference between policy and law much less separate the two.

She's one of those, who were so eloquently defined, by Gruber.

One of "those" that looks at things objectively and takes a position rather than blindly, predictably, incessantly always taking the same position. Give me more of "those".

[Danzig]

[quote=Cardus;1008011]

Originally Posted by Danzig

What you are "talking about" is that cops have an "overall attitude" that they can do whatever they want.

This notion is just plain wrong.

except it's not.
i lived with a cop, my dad. and knew a lot of his fellow cops, and i know several here. yes, they think their badge means 'omnipotence'. grand juries won't indict, their superiors do nothing.
crime is down significantly, while swat raids have increased from 3k a year to about 50k a year-mostly drug raids. then there's the militarization of the police forces, with even the la school district getting rpg's. rpgs?!?! yes, that's a fact-they got them along with their mraps. it's absurd.

[Pants II]

Liberal policy killed that man. Cigs aren't ridiculously taxed then he's not selling loosies.