|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 14, 2020 10:57 PM |
|
|
Lets get serious here.
It's as I said. Read what happened, see for yourself, then ask yourself what made the cops HANDCUFF the man? It's completely arbitrary and is indicative of an unhealthy drive to criminalize people unnecessarily - and in this regard it doesn't help the guy is black, obviously. Would they have done it with a white guy in a suit as well?
Nowhere near I live in Europe a person would be handcuffed and arrested for this. It's abuse of police authority, a waste of tax money and really, really bad policing. This kind of policemen no one needs, they make things just that much harder.
Quote:
I'll turn that question around in the same spirit: should he have lived above all else (including breaking the law)?
Yes. Silly question. Should someone die for resisting an arrest? "We serve and protect"? Not so.
Quote:
Do you not yet see the problem? Don't resist arrest! Getting arrested is abiding the law.
It's you who doesn't see the problem. Resisting arrest doesn't carry the death penalty - and even if it did, the cops are just the cops, they are not prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner. "Overly excessive force", you might say.
And as I said, the whole arrest is arbitrary and fishy - it's not in line with "serve and protect".
It's just a really bad way of policing.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 14, 2020 11:06 PM |
|
|
Thats another question. Rethink the arrest procedures but do not present this case as "the next black guy being killed" as you did. That's so dishonest and look what this mentality has done: they burned to the ground the restaurant where this happened. Mob emotion due to being uninformed. This has NOTHING to do with Floyd incident.
As for BB analysis, he was not shoot while running away but exactly in the moment he returned and tased the cop. Is on video. So the issue was set in stone, there is nothing to excuse him.
JollyJoker said:
Should someone die for resisting an arrest? "We serve and protect"? Not so.
What I said. You are reinventing the scene, watch again the video from all angles. He resisted, they tased him (didn't work), they fought him. No gun involved.
Then he fled, then he returned and tased the cop behind. The other fired to protect his colleague. Could have been done differently? Possible. But such decisions are second-split, with all adrenaline after physical struggle,conservation instinct and so. Thats not a one way solution, life above all. Whose life, in this case? Cop or criminal.
Black cop : shootings were justifiable, analyzing all videos of the incident. At the end he has a special message for "people defending these idiots".
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted June 14, 2020 11:52 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 00:24, 15 Jun 2020.
|
I see on the video two policeman are struggling very hard to pacify a suspect. Even if he is strong and alcohol induced I see a problem with their training and how they handle this situation when it comes to aggresive people. Hard to say and judge when a situation is dynamic, but imo they should be better trained to constrain agressive people, I don't know, trained in hand-to-hand combat maybe? In restraining locks? Or at least shoot him in the legs... maybe this death would be avoided then.
On the other hand guy was agressive, resisted arrest, violated their bodily integrity as he hit the policeman, was running from crime scene, stole police property and finally pointed a weapon at an officer (which gives a policeman the right to use deadly force according to the law). Handcuffing him was wrong? On the other hand what should they have done, let him go? I belive it is a standard procedure to handcuff a guy and bring him to a police station for arrest? Man was killed, but law gives authority to the police to shot suspects when feeling endangared (ex. reaching for a weapon, in this case a stolen one), so they executed that law. Imo his color didn't have anything to do with it.
"Serve and protect"? They protected citizens from a dangerous person. Firstly a drunk driver might have killed someone in a car accident. Secondly if a person is capable of attacking a policeman, even while drunk, for me it is a dangerous person. He stole a taser and was desperate, he might've caused accidents, stolen a car to run away, attack bystanders etc.
If anything, blame the law, §1983 Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court’s interpretations of it.
That and ofc America being a crazy country in which situations like this happen daily https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BZkxLQ6zlk.
OR this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc8GF8YLsHc (for those who would suggest I only showed a black guy).
EDIT: Another angle on the whole situation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnRuWcgflaE (On the other hand I see the cops were trying to do their best to be polite and act according to procedures).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 12:24 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Thats another question. Rethink the arrest procedures but do not present this case as "the next black guy being killed" as you did. That's so dishonest
You just don't get it. If you follow the video sequence in the article I linked to, then you'll see that all is well. The cops frisk him, nothing, they ask him whether he's ok with a breath test. Says, yes, but then says, what the hell, I can park the car right here and go to my sister's house, it's right there, no problem. And THAT is the point where the cops simply should have LET GO. They cannot prove he drove, breath test or not; going ahead now is just ill-will. It's malevolent, trying to frame him for something.
Then - he lies on the floor. What happened? And then - and we are already deep in arbitrary copland where people are criminalized, and, yes, it's the next black guy killed, because they wouldn't have pulled that with a white guy in a suit -, you come with this:
Quote:
JollyJoker said:
Should someone die for resisting an arrest? "We serve and protect"? Not so.
What I said. You are reinventing the scene, watch again the video from all angles. He resisted, they tased him (didn't work), they fought him. No gun involved.
Then he fled, then he returned and tased the cop behind. The other fired to protect his colleague. Could have been done differently? Possible. But such decisions are second-split, with all adrenaline after physical struggle,conservation instinct and so. Thats not a one way solution, life above all. Whose life, in this case? Cop or criminal.
See, a taser isn't a deadly weapon. It's EXPLICITELY used as such. And, as you said yourself - it didn't work. And now you are selling this as a life-or-death decision? Ridiculous.
Of course it may well be that the cop was too dumb to use the taser correctly and is only able to simply shoot a gun. But there's still no way round the fact that a taser is explicitely a weapon the police is proud to wield as "non-lethal".
I hope you see the problem here.
Oh, and another thing. The guy wasn't a criminal.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 12:24 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 00:49, 15 Jun 2020.
|
JollyJoker said:
It's as I said. Read what happened, see for yourself, then ask yourself what made the cops HANDCUFF the man? It's completely arbitrary and is indicative of an unhealthy drive to criminalize people unnecessarily
Fact 1: Brooks is found sleeping at the wheel of a vehicle parked in a drive through at Wendy's, blocking traffic.
Fact 2: Brooks takes the breath test and fails it.
This is sufficient evidence to support suspicion of crime (that he had been driving drunk), which is legally enough to justify arrest.
What was not justified was resisting arrest.
Accountability for the outcome lies with the party that did not cooperate with the arrest.
Clear as day.
JollyJoker said:
Yes. Silly question. Should someone die for resisting an arrest? "We serve and protect"? Not so.
"Should someone die for resisting arrest?" is clearly a question constructed in a self-serving way, that is why a yes/no answer is difficulty to give. Though first, shouldn't you be answering this question instead? - "Should someone resist arrest in the first place?"
Causation is relevant. Resisting arrest can lead to death, yes. It is not the first desired outcome, it's the last desired outcome. Should it lead to death? If the law demands it, yes, it should.
Notice that I'm not avoiding difficult questions, taking detours or switching focus to something else. If you're of good faith, you'll do the same in hope we reach common ground or find a better one.
JollyJoker said:
Stevie said:
Do you not yet see the problem? Don't resist arrest! Getting arrested is abiding the law.
It's you who doesn't see the problem. Resisting arrest doesn't carry the death penalty - and even if it did, the cops are just the cops, they are not prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner. "Overly excessive force", you might say.
It is not a penalty, that would be for courts to decide. It is law enforcement, the police has the authority to enforce the law. Even to that extent.
JollyJoker said:
And as I said, the whole arrest is arbitrary and fishy - it's not in line with "serve and protect".
It's just a really bad way of policing.
If we're to talk policy and idealism, I'll have you know that I completely disagree with someone killing another person altogether, even in pursuit of justice. That is because I firmly believe, following my Christian faith, that life is sacred and precious and should not be taken so easily (by man). But that is my own, personal belief. When it comes to a country that has laws and rules, I cannot apply my belief system. I do not have that authority. Which only means that whatever the law is in the US, I have no choice but to accept it and follow the concept of justice that it defines and the way to reach that justice to make sense of it.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 12:42 AM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 00:46, 15 Jun 2020.
|
@JJ
Stop digging yourself further in.
1. Guy was drunk and in a car. Failed the test so it's the facts (Btw when they arrived the car was on).
2. Standard procedure - guy is handcuffed, taken to station to sober up. The so called detoxification detention centre or where the hell they take drunk people in America. I don't belive race has anything to do here, for one the guy didn't even look like a criminal, but rather a normal guy. At this point you are accusing policeman of racism, becasue "it's always racism". They were very polite to him.
3. Guy resisted arrest.
4. Policeman shouted out "stop resisting" multiple times. He didn't.
5. Guy wanted to tase them. In case a weapon is used against a police officer they are allowed to use deadly force, and it doesn't matter what kind of weapon (plus the guy in another video explains that a taser is still dangerous). How can you even suggest that in such a situation a cop will think something in teh lines of "Gee, it's only a taser, no sense in being overeager here!"? This is plain stupid way of thinking.
Like I said, in this case the ONLY thing that makes me wonder is why policeman don't try to shoot in the legs, but maybe it is insufficient according to training...
If instead the guy was white, what would you say? Would you even engage in a discussion about him? Oh wait, you probably wouldn't even hear about it...
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 12:44 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 00:50, 15 Jun 2020.
|
JollyJoker said:
The cops frisk him, nothing, they ask him whether he's ok with a breath test. Says, yes, but then says, what the hell, I can park the car right here and go to my sister's house, it's right there, no problem. And THAT is the point where the cops simply should have LET GO. They cannot prove he drove, breath test or not; going ahead now is just ill-will. It's malevolent, trying to frame him for something.
You are mixing court attributes with police attributes. Courts prove. An officer can arrest someone on account of suspicion alone. The arrest was justified.
On the other hand, had they let him go, they would've acted against suspicion and would've been in the wrong.
JollyJoker said:
Oh, and another thing. The guy wasn't a criminal.
Up until he resisted arrest, he was only a suspect for driving under influence. True. But then he resisted arrest.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 01:33 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
It is law enforcement, the police has the authority to enforce the law. Even to that extent.
Not so fast. The police has the authority to enforce the law but the extension of that has to be related to the menace the individual infringing it represents at that point.
While I'm ready to give these two officers the benefit of the doubt, the same doesn't apply to Floyd or Garner cases and they were both infringing the law, too.
@Salamandre That video would sound way more convincing if the speaker hadn't made dozens of them with the same theme just in the last month.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 02:09 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
See, a taser isn't a deadly weapon. It's EXPLICITELY used as such. And, as you said yourself - it didn't work. And now you are selling this as a life-or-death decision? Ridiculous.
No, you try so hard to keep head out of water that you start to contradict yourself.
HERE you answered on how can a female restrain a violent criminal, and you told TASER.
Which means a taser can incapacitate a strong man, so a criminal using a taser on a cop is attempting to his life. An incapacitated man is unable to defend himself.
I would give up if I was you, at this point you have no arguments left - and you never had - for defending such criminals - and this is NOT a Floyd case. Sure, after the action anyone can suggest a better issue, like the cop offering him roses and cigars, but the reality is simple: idiot started to fight cops, he dug his grave.
Then press initiated the race war because they want Trump down so much that every chaos possible is welcome. Despicable people.
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 03:41 AM |
|
|
@Stevie
I really don't get why I bring up reform and professionalism and the chorused response is "personal responsibility, personal responsibility, personal responsibility" as though anything about political and institutional reform and individual responsibility were mutually exclusive.
The US has a problem with violence, especially gun violence. Sure, it could be worse, but it could also be _a lot_ better and there are practical ways of making sure the trend continues to go in a positive direction. Cops in certain states have substantially worse track records with handling criminals and at least some this can be traced back to crappy policies that rely way too much on trying to beat poor communities into submission.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 04:12 AM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
Cops in certain states have substantially worse track records with handling criminals and at least some this can be traced back to crappy policies that rely way too much on trying to beat poor communities into submission.
Finally something I can agree upon.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 04:41 AM |
|
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 08:58 AM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 09:22, 15 Jun 2020.
|
Salamandre said:
Then press initiated the race war because they want Trump down so much that every chaos possible is welcome. Despicable people.
Yep, that's why I say media is partly to blame for the current situation.
Nowadays each and every news starts with white man this, black man that. Why not "people"? You can say they are simply stating the obvious. Even if it's "showing the facts" it is not helping in the current situation. People will find this information, but the general audience will be like "white man killed a black brother, again! Let's riot". I can't stop to think this circle of hate is further induced by the media. Why do you think in Europe many criminal cases involving minorities do not enclose the race of the suspect?
In consequence we have this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/14/rayshard-brooks-shooting-protesters-set-fire-to-restaurant-where-black-man-shot-dead
So tell me? What is the message those "angry" people wanted to pass to others? Burn a f*cking burgery cus it's a symbol of black mans martyrdom? They could've even use it's walls for a mural in his memory, guess that's out of the picture now...
EDIT: "Among those protesting was Crystal Brooks, who said she is Brooks’ sister-in-law.
“He wasn’t causing anyone any harm,” she said. “The police went up to the car and even though the car was parked they pulled him out of the car and started tussling with him.”"
So now we will label drunk drivers as "didn't cause anyone harm", so they are ok? It's ok to drive drunk as long as I'll take a nap and will pull over to sleep in a drive-way? Did she even watch the video? "Pulled him" out of a car? With what? Force? Tussle him? After 20 minutes of standard procedure and he resisting arrest. Didn't cus any harm? He brawled with two police officers. Tell me, what this kind of mentality will lead to? I'll tell you: more cases like this cus citizens will show no respect to the authority whatsover... the American "victimization" has reached it's peak and is starting to turn things upside down.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 09:50 AM |
|
|
I find it funny, how people tell me I should stop, when they just argue with strawmen and from the point of view of a police state!
What do we have in America yet again? Riots on the street. Police brutality, plus racial bias in that brutality against blacks.
What is the brooks case? A prime example for why that is so. Because the police is enforcing the law in a way that is befitting for a totalitarian state. If you look at the article I linked to you will see and read this:
1) ONE policeman comes because the restaurant called - car parked in the drive-through lane, man seems to be sleeping in it. The policeman wakes him (10:42) and asks whether he's good. He seems unsure what to do. At 10:49 he calls assistance. If he'd got a call, he might have let it pass, but as it is, he wants to investigate.
2) 2nd policeman arrives at 10:56. Brooks says, he didn't drive himself, but was dropped off. Officer Rolfe rejects that statement. [Here we go. But whatever.]
3) At 11:03 it's established, Brooks is unarmed. At 11:04 the sobriety test starts.
4) Brooks is ok with a breath test. He admits he has been drinking, one and a half drinks, but is not too drunk to drive. Brooks says, he doesn't want to refuse anything. He ask the cops whether he can lock his car under their supervision and walk to his sister's house which isn't far.
The officers obviously refuse that.
And here we are: for the cops there are two roads of policing this. a) they can simply accept what Brooks says (full well knowing that his statement was probably a lie, but also knowing that it will need some policing to prove differently) and let him walk home; b) they can try to nail him in some way for DUI. [A lawyer will make short notice of this, though, and a white guy with a suit might call one at this point.]
5) 11:23 The result of the breath test is there. Officer Rolfe informs Brooks that he thinks he had too much to drink to drive and wants to handcuff him. Brooks resists and the tussle starts.
Now, Georgia has rather strict laws and penalties for DUI. The whole arrest process is illegal procedure. The case isn't clear, it needs investigation. They cops have nothing right now. They need to establish blood alcohol fast, and they need witnesses to testify that Brooks did drive, and especially WHEN he did drive and that he didn't drink AFTER driving. He needs a lawyer, since he's going to be treated as a criminal. We don't know what the breath test result is, but Brooks said he had one and a half drinks. There is a lot info they need, before the case can get to any DA.
At this stage they have to inform him about further proceedings they intend (taking him in for a blood test, because that's actually all they can do; in Georgia everyone has to accept this or forfeit their license immediately). Brooks has a right to a lawyer and needs his rights be told. Handcuffing is absolutely unnecessary. If Brooks would try to resist or try to flee they could still cuff him.
I mean, this isn't Haiti, you can't just handcuff people.
The tussle ends with one cop dropping his taser and instead pulling his gun and fires THREE times. Three times? Really?
What I want to establish here is this:
1) The cops COULD have dealt with the case differently, but decided to go through with the harshest possible action at every junction there was;
2) The way they did pull this through was illegal procedure. They didn't tell brooks what they intended, they didn't tell him his rights, they didn't tell him he had a right to a lawyer (and that he needed one).
3) Brooks may have acted silly - he may also have had a disorder, a paranoia, he may have been a soldier with PTSD, all speculation, but, remember, not guilty before proven guilty. If he lived, there'd be a trial for resisting and then we'd have seen.
However, against him was SUSPICION of DUI which isn't a crime that would warrant Riker's Island. [For clarification: it's either not serious, then they must not arrest and cuff him; or it is serious, then he needs to be informed about his rights.]
4) It's PRIMARILY not about Brooks, it's about the system, which is actively trying to criminalize its citizes in the US, which is a bad system of law inforcement, because criminalizing means, that cops see them as perps, and a perp is a perp; once you have previous, things are getting really ugly. Or, in other words - the system is out to get you, and the one thing that will help you if it's wrong place, wrong time for you, is a good lawyer and for that you need money.
5) Since "the system" is actually represented by humans (cops, attorneys, judges), the question is whether it goes unbiassed for everyone or whether it is biassed.
6) I think, it IS biassed, but in most cases only indirectly racist (of course there also ARE racists, but they are probably the bad apples the right talks about). Cops may be stupid, but they aren't dumb. They will generally try to enforce the law when they see a good chance for success to nail someone. That chance is certainly bigger with some nameless black guy than with a white suit, so it's basically the economy mirrored here. If someone looks a poor sod you can certainly harrass them into making a wrong move.
Add to that the proven "greater fear" of black men (because they are often of rather intimidating stature and their physiognomy is different to whites) and you don't need more.
End result: another black guy dead.
And I'll repeat, Brooks doesn't deserve to die for what he did. If you say stupid actions warrant stupid results, then you can excuse every systemic failure. The US cops aren't the Gestapo - they shouldn't be them, at least. That's why there are strict rules of procedure. Sure, if the cops happen to stumble upon a real criminal they may have a problem. But if said someone is NOT a criminal, then that someone depends on the cops to play by the rules and be fair - or else they need a good lawyer. Serve and protect - not nail the poor.
So this case is just a case in point. It shows all the flaws of the system.
Predictably, the Chief of Police retired and the cops were fired, showing that not all was in order, but the system won't be touched.
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 10:12 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Predictably, the Chief of Police retired and the cops were fired, showing that not all was in order, but the system won't be touched.
Yeah, because they know in this day age there is no other option. Or maybe he simply didn't want to go through all of this, knew it was a lost cause however he would try to defend himself or his subordinates as America is in an uproar and actions are taken on a moments notice. Angry mob won't allow for anything else unless heads roll...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 10:17 AM |
|
|
@blob2
Maybe, this latest incident right on top of the Floyd incident has its overtones about “victimization in America.” Sometimes that happens, maybe, if this had not come right after the Floyd incident, those cops wouldnt even be fired. But make no mistake, such polarization cuts both ways. What I mean is, now we have people like you who keeps talking on and on about how important it is to obey the law and of course police officers will execute the law and so on. Being a law-abiding person is not some end-goal, laws are here for us, they are here to make things easier for us. Once you start to think like we are here to obey them, you are paving the way for authoritarianism. And trust me, such collective mindshift really happens so fast. It is much better to have some people who are overreacting to authority, than to have a herd which is not reacting at all.
I am not objecting to you about the specifics of the Atlanta incident. But the rhetoric overall started to become too much about how we should of course comply to what the state says. A state is a necessary evil, we need laws because we cant go back to living as tribes, but a state is not something you adore.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 11:12 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Once you start to think like we are here to obey them, you are paving the way for authoritarianism. And trust me, such collective mindshift really happens so fast. It is much better to have some people who are overreacting to authority, than to have a herd which is not reacting at all.
Yet they are the ones with guns. But take their guns away and they have no means of protecting themselves.
artu said:
I am not objecting to you about the specifics of the Atlanta incident. But the rhetoric overall started to become too much about how we should of course comply to what the state says. A state is a necessary evil, we need laws because we cant go back to living as tribes, but a state is not something you adore.
No, the rhetoric started to be more about: f*ck the police let us do what we want. Cops want to arrest me? Beat the crap out of them.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 11:38 AM |
|
|
Who are the ones with guns? I dont get how that fits to what you quoted from me.
If you seriously think the exhaustion about police brutality over there is about people not being able to shoot cops, we are wasting our time here. I mean, a lot of people resist arrest in ways that seem stupid, even suicidal to us, and it’s not a new phenomenon, I remember the Rodney King case back in the day, then there were others but that is the point, why do they? You have to be really fed up with law enforcement to act that way, it displays zero trust. I don’t trust my government either but I wont risk my life resisting its police. See, if this was just one or two people, you could say they are probably psychotic or something but it’s not, it is a social phenomenon.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 11:50 AM |
|
|
If media kept telling me that Romanians have + 278% chances to be killed by police for walking on red light, I would surely try to escape when they catch me.
Don't look further. Propaganda + clickbait. Publish real statistics then everyone will realize he was a fool.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2020 12:00 PM |
|
|
Publishing "real statistics" has never kept a biassed person from keeping their bias, and that is true for the media as well.
Just take yourself as an example; no statistics and no amount of media barrage that you see happening can make you waver in your opinion.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
