Shady Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 You guys take your strawmen out for double dates or what? What strawmen? Why can't I resist arrest too? Can you only be Black? Quote
Black Dog Posted December 10, 2014 Author Report Posted December 10, 2014 Oh I know, they had already talked to him for about 20 minutes, but they should have talked longer, like it's a debating club or something. cite? There is NO debate. And yes, they could have used other means, like a taser or something, provided that that didn't kill him as well. See Vancouver airport. Or they could have tried a means of physical restraint other than using a tactic specifically outlawed by the NYPD. What strawmen? Why can't I resist arrest too? Can you only be Black? People understand it's not a good idea to resist arrest. People also understand the cops still have a responsibility to act, well, responsibly, and that a subject's non-cooperation does not give cops carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. Quote
Shady Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 cite? Or they could have tried a means of physical restraint other than using a tactic specifically outlawed by the NYPD. People understand it's not a good idea to resist arrest. People also understand the cops still have a responsibility to act, well, responsibly, and that a subject's non-cooperation does not give cops carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. Cite? Try watching the entire video. It's over 15 minutes long. Yes, you're right about cops having responsibility etc. But as I've already stated, and is always the case. If you don't commit a crime, and resist arrest, you really don't have anything to worry about. Why is that so hard to grasp. Don't break the law, and don't resist arrest, and no chance of being harmed. Quote
Argus Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 You'd thing the answer should be obvious. They have these people, called doctors. Do you have a statement from a doctor who says 'I saw a choke hold'? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 The medical examiners who examined Eric Garner. They cited neck compressions amongst the causes of death. Yes, I recognize that. It was likely one of the causes. Another cause was the cop sitting on his back. As I said, these are not abnormal police procedures all over the US and Canada when police take down an unwilling arrestee. Had he been healthy here would not have been any death or even harm. What I still don't get is how cops can fail to recognize what a pathetic threat such an obese out of shape individual represents. I didn't see anything in their words or attitudes which suggested they thought he was much of a threat. There didn't seem to be any anger or tension. It looked like they simply wanted to slap the cuffs on him and arrest him. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Oh well in that case, he definitely deserved to be choked and have his faced shoved into the ground. NYPD policy and general common sense dictates police should use the minimum amount of force necessary to effect an arrest. This looks to me like Maslow's hammer in action. What would you have suggested they do, just say "Oh, well, you don't want to be arrested? Okay then, bye." This was not exactly a violent take-down. There were no blows, no kicks, no baton strikes, and no use of chemicals or tazers. Basically they just tried to wrestle his arms together to cuff him. Oh boo hoo. Your problem is you still see this stuff as a bunch of bad apple incidents: a bug, not an actual feature of the system. The police are an organization set up to FORCE compliance with rules and laws. If people resist the police then force will be applied to compel them. It's sad when that results in an unintentional death, but not all the people who resist police are perfectly healthy, nor are the cops psychologists or psychiatrists or doctors. If Garner had been a healthy man he'd be on the same street corner today, probably selling cigarettes again after his court appearance. Edited December 10, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 The police are an organization set up to FORCE compliance with rules and laws.And herein lies a lot of the problem. Quote
Argus Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 And herein lies a lot of the problem. No, the problem is we actually need a group to enforce laws, that if we didn't have one society could no longer function. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 No, the problem is we actually need a group to enforce laws, that if we didn't have one society could no longer function.No one is saying we dont. Its the force issue that gets them into trouble. Not everything needs to be forced. Case in point, the Yatim shotting on the TTC. There were much better options than force. The 'respect my authority or else ' mentality is an issue as respects FORCE. Quote
Black Dog Posted December 10, 2014 Author Report Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) What would you have suggested they do, just say "Oh, well, you don't want to be arrested? Okay then, bye." This was not exactly a violent take-down. There were no blows, no kicks, no baton strikes, and no use of chemicals or tazers. Basically they just tried to wrestle his arms together to cuff him. They choked him, threw him to the ground and pushed his face into the sidewalk, then cuffed him and stood by without administering any kind of assistance though he was obviously in distress. I can only imagine what you'd be saying if that happened to you. The police are an organization set up to FORCE compliance with rules and laws. If people resist the police then force will be applied to compel them. It's sad when that results in an unintentional death, but not all the people who resist police are perfectly healthy, nor are the cops psychologists or psychiatrists or doctors. This is the nut of it. When someone is telling you they can't breathe when you have them in a (prohibited) chokehold and then stops breathing, you don't need to be a doctor to know that first aid might be required. If someone is standing in the middle of the street in winter in a hospital gown with a pair of scissors, you don't have to be a shrink to know they might be having some issues. Cops come into contact with people with mental health issues, with anger issues, with drug problems as a matter of course and they are simply inadequately trained to deal with them. Every person is a perp to be hammered down. If Garner had been a health man he'd be on the same street corner today, probably selling cigarettes again after his court appearance. Same goes for if the cop didn't choke him to death. Edited December 10, 2014 by Black Dog Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 Do you have a statement from a doctor who says 'I saw a choke hold'? So by your reckoning, if he was shot the examiner would be wrong in concluding the bullet hole through his heart killed him because he hadn't actually witnessed the shooting? Quote
guyser Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 So by your reckoning, if he was shot the examiner would be wrong in concluding the bullet hole through his heart killed him because he hadn't actually witnessed the shooting? No but I bet someone here might say..." hey you dont own a gun so how could you know?' " That wasnt a gun he had, Im an expert" Quote
GostHacked Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 BD keeps pointing out that you do not even need to be doing anything wrong and bad things can happen. Even if you comply you can run the risk of getting shot by a cop. IF Shady wants to talk about real crimes, we can go with Bush/CIA/Failed torture program. Is anyone going to hang for that screw up? Nope. One set of rules for you and I as citizens, another set of rules for those in government. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 No but I bet someone here might say..." hey you dont own a gun so how could you know?' " That wasnt a gun he had, Im an expert" That damn science can be a right pain in the arse to these "experts" Quote
Shady Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 And herein lies a lot of the problem. This comment herin lies the problem. Without enforcement of the law, the civil society ceases to exist. Quote
Shady Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 BD keeps pointing out that you do not even need to be doing anything wrong and bad things can happen. Even if you comply you can run the risk of getting shot by a cop. IF Shady wants to talk about real crimes, we can go with Bush/CIA/Failed torture program. Is anyone going to hang for that screw up? Nope. One set of rules for you and I as citizens, another set of rules for those in government. You're conflating two seperate issues. The CIA being much more nuanced, where legal definitions come into play, and various jurisdictions, outside of North America, as well as non-American citizens, classified as enemy combatants that aren't protected by the constitution. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 Since when did enforcing the law require killing unarmed people committing misdemeanors? Quote
eyeball Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 Since 9/11 for the most part, that's when official authorities really started coming unglued and got way to full of them selves. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
GostHacked Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 Since when did enforcing the law require killing unarmed people committing misdemeanors? Couple that with calling them police officers instead of peace officers. It is law ENFORCEMENT, meaning you WILL and MUST comply. You have no rights. Quote
guyser Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 This comment herin lies the problem. Without enforcement of the law, the civil society ceases to exist.Has anyone said anything different? Can you read the corresponding post that expains this thought? Or do you just go around flaunting your ignorance? Quote
GostHacked Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 You're conflating two seperate issues. The CIA being much more nuanced, where legal definitions come into play, and various jurisdictions, outside of North America, as well as non-American citizens, classified as enemy combatants that aren't protected by the constitution. The NDAA does allow Americans to be classified as 'Enemy Combatants'. That's way over the top anything Brown could have done. That is also part of the reason you see police forces that looks like a military brigade. What are we gearing up for? You can thank your buddies Bush and Cheney for getting legislation passed that violates a citizen's rights. It's not exactly off topic either, or a separate issue. The US actions abroad seem to mimic what we are now seeing in the 'homeland' against it's own citizens. Without something like the NDAA, the police could not get away with much of what they do get away with. The rules have changed. Without the NDAA, Brown may have been approached differently. Or countless others who do not deserve death. Even if you go with Brown was a thug, he did not need/deserve to die that day. CIA - 'We don't torture'. Bull. Police 'Appropriate use of force.' Bull. Since 9/11 for the most part, that's when official authorities really started coming unglued and got way to full of them selves. Bush/Cheney started with the PATRIOT Act, and then Obama threw in the NDAA on top of that. Two important pieces of legislation (that barely any senator read before passing) that bring us to the state we are in now. They are not separate issues, those acts are contributing to the excessive militarization we see among police forces. Quote
GostHacked Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 Why do you think it was easy to call in the National Guard? A form of martial law. And we have seen many protests around the US because of these excessive police actions. Some of those turning violent because of the thugs wearing a badge and riot gear. With that kind of armour, you can beat on people all day and still not feel the punches they throw. Now that these protests are gaining more momentum, you will see more militarized police actions to try and combat this. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 Since 9/11 for the most part, that's when official authorities really started coming unglued and got way to full of them selves. Nah....long before that in the U.S., it's just that Canadian liberals just started paying attention after that because they always feared it might "cross the border". What they don't know or recall is that Canada had "security certificates" long before the 'merkins had the PATRIOT Act. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 Yes, we should have been using them to detain your officials when they were running around the planet creating the need for the PA. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2014 Report Posted December 10, 2014 Yes, we should have been using them to detain your officials when they were running around the planet creating the need for the PA. Shoulda....coulda...woulda....instead your country was too busy courting economic and geo-political favour with the U.S. What were you voters thinking ? Oh, I know...something about lower prices in the U.S. !! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.