Deathly Visage Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 sorry, but to shoot someone when they are not a immediate threat is just plain wrong, if this man still has his sanity, I'd be suprised! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 This is a f*cked up situation. Watching some of those other clips, I'm amazed that anyone has to deal with that type of sh*t for a job. Thugs taking a swing at you? I'd be tazering those little punks left right and center. Then again, freaking out and shooting a kid in the back is not the way to handle the situation. f*cking guy's going to end up in jail for this, to be sure. The sad, but true, moral is this - if you don't want to get shot, don't be a f*cking thug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 @voteneg The problem is that we're not even sure that this guy was being unruly, and one witness even says he was complying entirely. Despite that, the police are trained to realize that we live in an imperfect world, where people will become unruly and uncooperative. Simply saying that people should be calm and co-operative doesn't really address anything at issue here. Anyway, after seeing a few more videos of this, I'm kind of disappointed the rest of the officers weren't disciplined in some fashion for beating the man prior to the shooting. And what about the female officer telling one passer-by to surrender her camera? If there isn't a law about that, there should be; why in the hell should a law enforcement officer be able to take something that has evidence of police misconduct? There's probably not a law for her to break by doing so, but she should be ashamed of herself for trying to protect the officers that just violently beat and killed a man. I have seen enough riot videos, and enough officers telling camera men to surrender their cameras, to know that there's a lot of loyalty and and protection going on that isn't aimed at the community. Leaves no question as to why LA gang bangers recognize the LAPD as the cities largest gang. Simply put Sag, you are making an argument out of something that isn't being argued. You are completely ignoring the many times I have consistently said that the first and foremost problem with this situation was the cops decision to pull out his gun. You act as if I'm trying to give the cop a free pass here, I'm not. Your arguing whether or not people have right to be angry and suspicious of the cops, I'm theorizing that said suspicion causes a chain of overreaction, two seperate things. I choose the word overreaction specifically because I feel it implies that incidents like this could be prevented at every level that overreaction occurs whether it be the individual being arrested, or the cop who decided he needs to beat a dude into submission or worst yet pull out his gun and then misfire. I believe if Oscar Grant wouldn't have struggled (as the video clearly shows) the other officer likely wouldn't have pulled his gun. However with that said I should also say that citizens should be able to count on the fact that officers wouldn't be so negligent, unfortunately that is not the case, you could always get some power tripping rookie fresh out of the academy with a penchant for stomping faces... I think more training is needed. From the camera angle I posted, I did not see any beating per se... A little force to get these gentlemen to the floor and a knee over the neck/back to keep them down... uncomfortable I'm sure... but not a beatdown. A beat down involves punches and kicks and clubs... this had none of those things. All I saw was the officers trying to restrain the individuals. Why it was decided to restrain these individuals, I don't know. I'm left to assume that they had reason to, and if they didn't I'm going back to my last point that it wasn't necessary to struggle with them at that time regardless. I haven't seen the video with the lady officer telling the folks to surrender their camera... that is without question beyond her scope of authority... but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion. I also mentioned in the first post of this topic that I feel that the Oakland Authorities were dragging there feet on this one. I was hinting at the fact that I felt they were going to to great of lengths to protect one of their own. I said that I thought this officer should have been discharged immediately and been formally charged with a crime for this. None of which has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) I just saw the video again... That is no accident. He knew what he did. This just makes me angry. I'd have popped the cop myself if I was there. Who the f*ck puts their taser right next to their gun? This is why EVERYONE should carry and use a camera on them... you'll never know when you may need to get ready to post up on YouTube. YouTube is God's eyes Edited January 9, 2009 by the7ftmidget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iminicus Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 How does rioting in the streets and causing more problems and property damage change what happened? Why should innocent civilians be put at risk due to the actions of these cops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 How does rioting in the streets and causing more problems and property damage change what happened? Why should innocent civilians be put at risk due to the actions of these cops? Well, if they choose to riot stupidly, than I agree with you, they should all be slapped with a wet fish. To bad they failed to fully turn-over the cop car. If you're going to riot, riot responsibly. Anyway, give him the chair. Why hasn't anybody brought this up: If he did nothing wrong, WHY DID HE RESIGN?!?! To avoid getting figured out. He's hiding something he didn't want internal affairs to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iminicus Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 How does rioting in the streets and causing more problems and property damage change what happened? Why should innocent civilians be put at risk due to the actions of these cops? Well, if they choose to riot stupidly, than I agree with you, they should all be slapped with a wet fish. To bad they failed to fully turn-over the cop car. If you're going to riot, riot responsibly. Anyway, give him the chair. Why hasn't anybody brought this up: If he did nothing wrong, WHY DID HE RESIGN?!?! To avoid getting figured out. He's hiding something he didn't want internal affairs to know. Or he is doing the responsible thing by removing himself from the job. He knows he committed a heinous act and as such is paying for it with his job and life long knowledge. The question is, will he be prosecuted for a wrongful death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 How does rioting in the streets and causing more problems and property damage change what happened? Why should innocent civilians be put at risk due to the actions of these cops? Well, if they choose to riot stupidly, than I agree with you, they should all be slapped with a wet fish. To bad they failed to fully turn-over the cop car. If you're going to riot, riot responsibly. Anyway, give him the chair. Why hasn't anybody brought this up: If he did nothing wrong, WHY DID HE RESIGN?!?! To avoid getting figured out. He's hiding something he didn't want internal affairs to know. Or he is doing the responsible thing by removing himself from the job. He knows he committed a heinous act and as such is paying for it with his job and life long knowledge. The question is, will he be prosecuted for a wrongful death? Nuh-uh. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been suspended, not put back on patrol. When a cop fires his gun, he is not allowed out untill all the paperwork and stuff is settled. I'm really angry that the state is paying for his expensive defense attronies... WTF? I pay taxes to defend assholes like this one? That punk-bitch better be prosecuted (and probably will), because if he is not, you better believe another King riot taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iminicus Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 How does rioting in the streets and causing more problems and property damage change what happened? Why should innocent civilians be put at risk due to the actions of these cops? Well, if they choose to riot stupidly, than I agree with you, they should all be slapped with a wet fish. To bad they failed to fully turn-over the cop car. If you're going to riot, riot responsibly. Anyway, give him the chair. Why hasn't anybody brought this up: If he did nothing wrong, WHY DID HE RESIGN?!?! To avoid getting figured out. He's hiding something he didn't want internal affairs to know. Or he is doing the responsible thing by removing himself from the job. He knows he committed a heinous act and as such is paying for it with his job and life long knowledge. The question is, will he be prosecuted for a wrongful death? Nuh-uh. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been suspended, not put back on patrol. When a cop fires his gun, he is not allowed out untill all the paperwork and stuff is settled. I'm really angry that the state is paying for his expensive defense attronies... WTF? I pay taxes to defend assholes like this one? That punk-bitch better be prosecuted (and probably will), because if he is not, you better believe another King riot taking place. Yeah, I hate it when the state pays for DAs for drug dealers, rapists, murderers, petty criminals, etc etc. The good thing about the legal system is everyone has a right to a fair trial. If you can't afford a lawyer, then the state will pay so that you can defend yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) How does rioting in the streets and causing more problems and property damage change what happened? Why should innocent civilians be put at risk due to the actions of these cops? Well, if they choose to riot stupidly, than I agree with you, they should all be slapped with a wet fish. To bad they failed to fully turn-over the cop car. If you're going to riot, riot responsibly. Anyway, give him the chair. Why hasn't anybody brought this up: If he did nothing wrong, WHY DID HE RESIGN?!?! To avoid getting figured out. He's hiding something he didn't want internal affairs to know. Or he is doing the responsible thing by removing himself from the job. He knows he committed a heinous act and as such is paying for it with his job and life long knowledge. The question is, will he be prosecuted for a wrongful death? Nuh-uh. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been suspended, not put back on patrol. When a cop fires his gun, he is not allowed out untill all the paperwork and stuff is settled. I'm really angry that the state is paying for his expensive defense attronies... WTF? I pay taxes to defend assholes like this one? That punk-bitch better be prosecuted (and probably will), because if he is not, you better believe another King riot taking place. Yeah, I hate it when the state pays for DAs for drug dealers, rapists, murderers, petty criminals, etc etc. The good thing about the legal system is everyone has a right to a fair trial. If you can't afford a lawyer, then the state will pay so that you can defend yourself. lol... don't ignore the difference. The cop's/killer's lawyer is EXPENSIVE! Little Lawyers appointed to crooks are as cheap (and lame) as the state could find. I just found out the victim's family filed a claim demanding $25 MILLION from BART. That is bullsh*t... oportunist f*cks are trying to dodge work for the rest of their lives. I feel those 25 mill should be used to fund oakland's sh*tty schools and other stuff like that, not put it in the pockets of those sh*t bags. I love my money like a Jew, so knowing my tax money will be going to stuff like this makes me want to go postal on those A-holes and stop paying taxes. I wish I could pick where my money went.... *shrugs* f*ck the world. Edited January 9, 2009 by the7ftmidget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iminicus Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 How does rioting in the streets and causing more problems and property damage change what happened? Why should innocent civilians be put at risk due to the actions of these cops? Well, if they choose to riot stupidly, than I agree with you, they should all be slapped with a wet fish. To bad they failed to fully turn-over the cop car. If you're going to riot, riot responsibly. Anyway, give him the chair. Why hasn't anybody brought this up: If he did nothing wrong, WHY DID HE RESIGN?!?! To avoid getting figured out. He's hiding something he didn't want internal affairs to know. Or he is doing the responsible thing by removing himself from the job. He knows he committed a heinous act and as such is paying for it with his job and life long knowledge. The question is, will he be prosecuted for a wrongful death? Nuh-uh. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been suspended, not put back on patrol. When a cop fires his gun, he is not allowed out untill all the paperwork and stuff is settled. I'm really angry that the state is paying for his expensive defense attronies... WTF? I pay taxes to defend assholes like this one? That punk-bitch better be prosecuted (and probably will), because if he is not, you better believe another King riot taking place. Yeah, I hate it when the state pays for DAs for drug dealers, rapists, murderers, petty criminals, etc etc. The good thing about the legal system is everyone has a right to a fair trial. If you can't afford a lawyer, then the state will pay so that you can defend yourself. lol... don't ignore the difference. The cop's/killer's lawyer is EXPENSIVE! Little Lawyers appointed to crooks are as cheap (and lame) as the state could find. I just found out the victim's family filed a claim demanding $25 MILLION from BART. That is bullsh*t... oportunist f*cks are trying to dodge work for the rest of their lives. I feel those 25 mill should be used to fund oakland's sh*tty schools and other stuff like that, not put it in the pockets of those sh*t bags. I love my money like a Jew, so knowing my tax money will be going to stuff like this makes me want to go postal on those A-holes. Dude, DA or District Attorneys don't get paid more for the person they defend. They work on a salary which is calculated on an hourly rate. The state wouldn't pay for a private lawyer. Which he isn't having if the DA has been called in. Yes, the family are being opportunistic. They need to recover from their tragedy and 'recoup' the loss of income. $25 million is way to much though. They need to calculate how much the victim would earn on the level of education he had. They then need to multiply that by how many years he has working. This should give out a figure between $200- $300,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 How does rioting in the streets and causing more problems and property damage change what happened? Why should innocent civilians be put at risk due to the actions of these cops? Well, if they choose to riot stupidly, than I agree with you, they should all be slapped with a wet fish. To bad they failed to fully turn-over the cop car. If you're going to riot, riot responsibly. Anyway, give him the chair. Why hasn't anybody brought this up: If he did nothing wrong, WHY DID HE RESIGN?!?! To avoid getting figured out. He's hiding something he didn't want internal affairs to know. Or he is doing the responsible thing by removing himself from the job. He knows he committed a heinous act and as such is paying for it with his job and life long knowledge. The question is, will he be prosecuted for a wrongful death? Nuh-uh. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been suspended, not put back on patrol. When a cop fires his gun, he is not allowed out untill all the paperwork and stuff is settled. I'm really angry that the state is paying for his expensive defense attronies... WTF? I pay taxes to defend assholes like this one? That punk-bitch better be prosecuted (and probably will), because if he is not, you better believe another King riot taking place. Yeah, I hate it when the state pays for DAs for drug dealers, rapists, murderers, petty criminals, etc etc. The good thing about the legal system is everyone has a right to a fair trial. If you can't afford a lawyer, then the state will pay so that you can defend yourself. lol... don't ignore the difference. The cop's/killer's lawyer is EXPENSIVE! Little Lawyers appointed to crooks are as cheap (and lame) as the state could find. I just found out the victim's family filed a claim demanding $25 MILLION from BART. That is bullsh*t... oportunist f*cks are trying to dodge work for the rest of their lives. I feel those 25 mill should be used to fund oakland's sh*tty schools and other stuff like that, not put it in the pockets of those sh*t bags. I love my money like a Jew, so knowing my tax money will be going to stuff like this makes me want to go postal on those A-holes. Dude, DA or District Attorneys don't get paid more for the person they defend. They work on a salary which is calculated on an hourly rate. The state wouldn't pay for a private lawyer. Which he isn't having if the DA has been called in. Yes, the family are being opportunistic. They need to recover from their tragedy and 'recoup' the loss of income. $25 million is way to much though. They need to calculate how much the victim would earn on the level of education he had. They then need to multiply that by how many years he has working. This should give out a figure between $200- $300,000. Dude, the lawyer defending the killer is a private lawyer, not a simple DA. f*ck that! That's still too much. All they deserve is the funeral service money. Maybe a little something to aide his now fatherless daughter and baby's mamma, but not that much. The figure demanded shouldn't cross the $100 thousand mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3niX Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Well... Reminds me of the Rodney King case in a way. A black man gets heavily mistreated by the police, riots ensue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flitcroft101 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Well... Reminds me of the Rodney King case in a way. A black man gets heavily mistreated by the police, riots ensue. more so sean bell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxidizer Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Cleave into the offending police officer's throat with an army knife and video it for TheYNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Garcia aka NjNakedSnake Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Christ, that video says it all. He shot a subdued man in the back, in front of a train full of civilians. He's f*cking finished that guy, done. A murderer is what he is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gutslab Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 It does kind of resemble Rodney King except King didn't die and there was a stronger reaction in LA versus what we have seen so far in Oakland, and no other people have been killed besides Oscar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maceo242k1 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The sad, but true, moral is this - if you don't want to get shot, don't be a f*cking thug. Thats a little ignorant... We dont know what they were, other than most likely wrecked. And police have a long history taking things over the edge that were nowhere near as serious as they would eventually make it. Men have been shot "accidentally" for much less than that, and for you to imply that only thugs get shot up by the police is awfully naive. As far as punks are concerning, I partially agree with you, but also there are some things that police do that often escalate situations that normally shouldn't require force. Have you ever listened to a police officer talk to anyone? If they werent using sledgehammers on ants there wouldnt be so many cracks in the sidewalks, get it? edit - typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The sad, but true, moral is this - if you don't want to get shot, don't be a f*cking thug. Thats a little ignorant... We dont know what they were, other than most likely wrecked. And police have a long history taking things over the edge that were nowhere near as serious as they would eventually make it. Men have been shot "accidentally" for much less than that, and for you to imply that only thugs get shot up by the police is awfully naive. As far as punks are concerning, I partially agree with you, but also there are some things that police do that often escalate situations that normally shouldn't require force. Have you ever listened to a police officer talk to anyone? If they werent using sledgehammers on ants there wouldnt be so many cracks in the sidewalks, get it? edit - typo If a cop pulls over a minority, he is a thug. All black people are thugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 It does kind of resemble Rodney King except King didn't die and there was a stronger reaction in LA versus what we have seen so far in Oakland, and no other people have been killed besides Oscar. Oakland doesn't know how to riot. Their new to that; give them a break. Just wait a little... King's cops were set loose, THEN the riots got funky. If some other bullsh*t turns up in the cops' favor, of course the riots will go boom. Be patient, sit back, and enjoy the show. 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machida Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Anyway, after seeing a few more videos of this, I'm kind of disappointed the rest of the officers weren't disciplined in some fashion for beating the man prior to the shooting. And what about the female officer telling one passer-by to surrender her camera? If there isn't a law about that, there should be; why in the hell should a law enforcement officer be able to take something that has evidence of police misconduct? There's probably not a law for her to break by doing so, but she should be ashamed of herself for trying to protect the officers that just violently beat and killed a man. I have seen enough riot videos, and enough officers telling camera men to surrender their cameras, to know that there's a lot of loyalty and and protection going on that isn't aimed at the community. Leaves no question as to why LA gang bangers recognize the LAPD as the cities largest gang. I have to agree with your post. It also looks to be the same guy that shot the kid was the same guy who was trying to throw blows with the other subdued prisoner about 20 seconds in. Doesn't bode well for his cry of mere negligence. Edited January 9, 2009 by Machida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) @voteneg The problem is that we're not even sure that this guy was being unruly, and one witness even says he was complying entirely. Despite that, the police are trained to realize that we live in an imperfect world, where people will become unruly and uncooperative. Simply saying that people should be calm and co-operative doesn't really address anything at issue here. Anyway, after seeing a few more videos of this, I'm kind of disappointed the rest of the officers weren't disciplined in some fashion for beating the man prior to the shooting. And what about the female officer telling one passer-by to surrender her camera? If there isn't a law about that, there should be; why in the hell should a law enforcement officer be able to take something that has evidence of police misconduct? There's probably not a law for her to break by doing so, but she should be ashamed of herself for trying to protect the officers that just violently beat and killed a man. I have seen enough riot videos, and enough officers telling camera men to surrender their cameras, to know that there's a lot of loyalty and and protection going on that isn't aimed at the community. Leaves no question as to why LA gang bangers recognize the LAPD as the cities largest gang. Simply put Sag, you are making an argument out of something that isn't being argued. You are completely ignoring the many times I have consistently said that the first and foremost problem with this situation was the cops decision to pull out his gun. You act as if I'm trying to give the cop a free pass here, I'm not. Your arguing whether or not people have right to be angry and suspicious of the cops, I'm theorizing that said suspicion causes a chain of overreaction, two seperate things. I choose the word overreaction specifically because I feel it implies that incidents like this could be prevented at every level that overreaction occurs whether it be the individual being arrested, or the cop who decided he needs to beat a dude into submission or worst yet pull out his gun and then misfire. I believe if Oscar Grant wouldn't have struggled (as the video clearly shows) the other officer likely wouldn't have pulled his gun. However with that said I should also say that citizens should be able to count on the fact that officers wouldn't be so negligent, unfortunately that is not the case, you could always get some power tripping rookie fresh out of the academy with a penchant for stomping faces... I think more training is needed. From the camera angle I posted, I did not see any beating per se... A little force to get these gentlemen to the floor and a knee over the neck/back to keep them down... uncomfortable I'm sure... but not a beatdown. A beat down involves punches and kicks and clubs... this had none of those things. All I saw was the officers trying to restrain the individuals. Why it was decided to restrain these individuals, I don't know. I'm left to assume that they had reason to, and if they didn't I'm going back to my last point that it wasn't necessary to struggle with them at that time regardless. I haven't seen the video with the lady officer telling the folks to surrender their camera... that is without question beyond her scope of authority... but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion. I also mentioned in the first post of this topic that I feel that the Oakland Authorities were dragging there feet on this one. I was hinting at the fact that I felt they were going to to great of lengths to protect one of their own. I said that I thought this officer should have been discharged immediately and been formally charged with a crime for this. None of which has happened. Well, only one part of that was really addressing anything you've said. In any case, I just don't think it's fair to blame any part of it on Mr. Grant when we're not even sure that he was being un-cooperative. I've seen two videos of the same incident, one from a different angle. On one, we see the video pick up after Mr. Grant is already on the ground, and we assume that he must have been one of the people causing trouble, and that he was resisting arrest with the officers milling around him. However, the other video I saw, showed the officers telling him to get down as he approached them arresting another man. Then it shows one officer kicking him twice, before kneeling to pin him down, and before he was shot. The female officer trying to take the camera was not actually filmed, but the woman who shot the second-angle footage recounted how the officer tried to take her camera. The second angle was posted somewhere in this thread as a link to live-leak. It's hard to see the misconduct in the first angle of the tape, but on the second one, I think the beating prior to the shooting is clear. Edited January 9, 2009 by SagaciousKJB QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) The sad, but true, moral is this - if you don't want to get shot, don't be a f*cking thug. Thats a little ignorant... We dont know what they were, other than most likely wrecked. And police have a long history taking things over the edge that were nowhere near as serious as they would eventually make it. Men have been shot "accidentally" for much less than that, and for you to imply that only thugs get shot up by the police is awfully naive. As far as punks are concerning, I partially agree with you, but also there are some things that police do that often escalate situations that normally shouldn't require force. Have you ever listened to a police officer talk to anyone? If they werent using sledgehammers on ants there wouldnt be so many cracks in the sidewalks, get it? edit - typo First of all, I never said bad things don't happen to good people. I said don't be a thug if you don't want to get shot. Had Oscar not tried to resist and wriggle away when the other kids showed up, he'd be alive today. So please hand out your "ignorant"s and "naive"s a little more sparingly, champ. That's not to ignore the heinous act on the part of the BART officer, but to point out that the only ignorance here is on behalf of the folks who automatically point their fingers at the cops as the problem. Edit - HAs the 'cop' made a statement yet? I can't wait to see what sort of weaselly defense he puts up. Edited January 9, 2009 by Otter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The sad, but true, moral is this - if you don't want to get shot, don't be a f*cking thug. Thats a little ignorant... We dont know what they were, other than most likely wrecked. And police have a long history taking things over the edge that were nowhere near as serious as they would eventually make it. Men have been shot "accidentally" for much less than that, and for you to imply that only thugs get shot up by the police is awfully naive. As far as punks are concerning, I partially agree with you, but also there are some things that police do that often escalate situations that normally shouldn't require force. Have you ever listened to a police officer talk to anyone? If they werent using sledgehammers on ants there wouldnt be so many cracks in the sidewalks, get it? edit - typo First of all, I never said bad things don't happen to good people. I said don't be a thug if you don't want to get shot. Had Oscar not tried to resist and wriggle away when the other kids showed up, he'd be alive today. So please hand out your "ignorant"s and "naive"s a little more sparingly, champ. That's not to ignore the heinous act on the part of the BART officer, but to point out that the only ignorance here is on behalf of the folks who automatically point their fingers at the cops as the problem. Can you give a link where we can see him resisting? Trying to avoid getting his face slammed to the ground, like cops love to do, does not count as resisting. So where is the resisting? Cops are the problem. No terrorist is going to attack a train in Oakland. There are many better targets for them, therefore BART is useless and should not be allowed to carry guns. Plus reaching for any kind of weapon to use on an unarmed man who is already down and subdued is unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 only ignorance here is on behalf of the folks who automatically point their fingers at the cops as the problem. I think it's a bit unfair to say that those conclusions were reached "automatically". At first I thought the only thing the officer was guilty of was negligence, and that Mr. Grant was the cause of most of his problems, just as you do. However, after hearing much more about it, and then seeing footage at another angle, I have to say that the incident wasn't that clear cut, and the camera woman of the second bit of footage I saw states that she saw Mr. Grant approach, and then be told to get on the ground, and she insisted he was being co-operative the entire time, despite being kicked and pinned repeatedly. However, then you have the first video, which clearly does show him writhing around; but is this because he's resisting arrest, or because he's just been beaten? In any case, at the very end, the camera woman's account about a female officer trying to take her video camera really gives me the benefit of the doubt for Mr. Grant in this situation, and is a case of misconduct all on its own. I have to wonder how many other camera angles may have clearly shown police officers doing wrong far before the shooting, that were confiscated by officers on the scene. I mean, a whole train full of people were looking on, you'd have to assume more than two people filmed the incident. Honestly, I think what is worse about the videos entirely, aside from a man being shot and losing his life, is the reaction of the people on the train. They begin frantically trying to leave the train when they find out they've been witness to the police shooting the man. It's not as if it were a shoot-out that would make everyone afraid of stray gun-fire. One shot by the police, but in an incredible context, seems to have scared the living sh*t out of many people aboard. I just wonder if they were scared of the gunshot in general, or by the true nature of what they had witnessed. QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straznicy Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 When I've been reading accounts of this and watching videos I've actually sidelined my absolute opinion of American police as among the worst in the industrialised world. In doing so, I've maybe gained a small shred of sympathy for the officer who pulled the trigger. Let me first say that, y'know, the behaviour of the cops in shot and in reports strikes me as completely uncivil and callous in general, forget about the shooting. I've only skimmed through this topic, so I dunno, but maybe what they were doing was at a tolerable level for the majority of Americans, but I know if I was at the scene I definitely would not just stand by while they dished out such treatment on three guys who were from what the evidence (that I've seen) shows, pretty much subdued and physically compliant. If the police are going to use such tactics, then it should come as no surprise to them when they face severe criticism, and definitely as no surprise when they receive minor support in certain scenarios that require them to defend themselves. So for the way they were acting in general I think they deserve all the waves of sh*te they're receiving. As for the actual shooting, well, I think it shows how trigger happy cops can be when it comes to using their tasers. I'm glad they're not employed in Scotland, since they seem to be more a hazard and pain for the tased person rather than an asset to society. But anyway, the guy's already being restrained way out of proportion to how he was acting with some f*cking weird methods. Then the police decide to tase him - and I do genuinely believe that is what the cop intended to do judging from his reaction and just the sheer fact that it would take a serious instability and cloud of judgement to shoot a man in a very public scene. Trying to make it look like an outright intentional shooting is a spin some leftist, civil rights and free media news sources would be all to happy to put on affairs - corrupting actuality to pursue own agendas and goals is not something restricted to the corporate media. If the cop had intentionally shot this guy, you wouldn't be seeing it all over the mass media. But the bottom line is, if a civilian also unintentionally shot a police officer, they'd be dished out a life sentence (or worse) like FOX dishes out pure sh*te. Why should things be treated all that differently when the tables are turned? The polis should be brought up on charges of culpable homicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maceo242k1 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 First of all, I never said bad things don't happen to good people. I said don't be a thug if you don't want to get shot. Had Oscar not tried to resist and wriggle away when the other kids showed up, he'd be alive today. So please hand out your "ignorant"s and "naive"s a little more sparingly, champ. That's not to ignore the heinous act on the part of the BART officer, but to point out that the only ignorance here is on behalf of the folks who automatically point their fingers at the cops as the problem. You made an overly generalized statement regarding thugs getting shot. If you you want to be a little closer closer to the truth, the statement would go more like - Don't appear to be a threat to trigger happy policemen, or you will get get shot. But how does one do this, when the society we live in trains cops in urban areas to percieve us all as threats. Whether we are thugs, or a man trying to produce I.D. (see Amadou Diallo) We arent pointing our fingers in ignorance, not all of us at least. Until you have been treated like an criminal for no apparent reason, just "random" stops , you will never understand the source of our exasperation, anger, or mistrust. I live in an upscale area, and drive around that area on a daily basis. I drive an 04 GS300, a class of car that fits the area/income level of the place I live. As do many of my neighbors. Only difference is, I am one of maybe 4 black residents in my townhome community. So when I get stopped, asked whose car I'm driving, and if I'm visiting folks in the area that my drivers license says that I live in, forgive me for being a little bit put off. I've had my car searched from bumper to bumper after picking up my cousin from newark airport. They left my things on the side of the road when they were finished. Random? Really? I mean, really? There is a stigma in this country about minorities and doing well for themselves, legally. And another one for all of us being dangerous felons. Not that they dont exist, they totally do. But why are we the main groups affected by this when we are such a small number of Americans? Blacks are 12 percent of the nation's registered population. All the other groups combined with us make up about 20 percent. Don't even try to say there arent as many white gangs, drug dealers, thugs, etc. The numbers of Minority to Caucasian criminals, based on a pure numbers analysis - there is no comparison. Why arent whites complaining of police brutality and unfair treatment? The only voices you hear from a caucasian point of perspective are those who support the minority side, or those who think we are unreasonable for believing that its not a fair system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryuclan Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) When I've been reading accounts of this and watching videos I've actually sidelined my absolute opinion of American police as among the worst in the industrialised world. In doing so, I've maybe gained a small shred of sympathy for the officer who pulled the trigger. Let me first say that, y'know, the behaviour of the cops in shot and in reports strikes me as completely uncivil and callous in general, forget about the shooting. I've only skimmed through this topic, so I dunno, but maybe what they were doing was at a tolerable level for the majority of Americans, but I know if I was at the scene I definitely would not just stand by while they dished out such treatment on three guys who were from what the evidence (that I've seen) shows, pretty much subdued and physically compliant. If the police are going to use such tactics, then it should come as no surprise to them when they face severe criticism, and definitely as no surprise when they receive minor support in certain scenarios that require them to defend themselves. So for the way they were acting in general I think they deserve all the waves of sh*te they're receiving. As for the actual shooting, well, I think it shows how trigger happy cops can be when it comes to using their tasers. I'm glad they're not employed in Scotland, since they seem to be more a hazard and pain for the tased person rather than an asset to society. But anyway, the guy's already being restrained way out of proportion to how he was acting with some f*cking weird methods. Then the police decide to tase him - and I do genuinely believe that is what the cop intended to do judging from his reaction and just the sheer fact that it would take a serious instability and cloud of judgement to shoot a man in a very public scene. Trying to make it look like an outright intentional shooting is a spin some leftist, civil rights and free media news sources would be all to happy to put on affairs - corrupting actuality to pursue own agendas and goals is not something restricted to the corporate media. If the cop had intentionally shot this guy, you wouldn't be seeing it all over the mass media. But the bottom line is, if a civilian also unintentionally shot a police officer, they'd be dished out a life sentence (or worse) like FOX dishes out pure sh*te. Why should things be treated all that differently when the tables are turned? The polis should be brought up on charges of culpable homicide. Yeah i it was a civilian shooting a cop on accident then that person would be lucky if he even made it to a holding cell. Also those type of tactics to restrain people are not out of proportion as I have seen. Every arrest I've seen the cops force the guy to the ground, face to the side, then put their knees on the guys wrists so he can't move. I don't know about you but I would sure as hell at least wiggle a little bit to get them off of me. Tazers are not a joke, and cops have been using them every chance they get ever since they've been implemented. anybody hear about that I think it was 6 year old boy that got tazered at his school? Here in Milwaukee teens get peppersprayed and tazored everyday. My sister actually had to leave from school one day because a student got pepper sprayed and the cops sprayed so much that nobody could walk down that hallway. I love it when cops do their jobs, there is nothing wrong with cops in my opinion, but they shouldn't be allowed to be taken off the hook when incidents like this occur. It's their job to serve and protect I don't know which of those they were doing when they shot this guy. Also Otter, there is no proof that this man was a thug. All we know about him was tht he was a man that got arrested on New Years like so many other people do, but this man got shot in the back due to negligence. Wow the guy is on Paid Administrative Leave.... Edited January 9, 2009 by ryuclan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Blacks are 12 percent of the nation's registered population. All the other groups combined with us make up about 20 percent. Don't even try to say there arent as many white gangs, drug dealers, thugs, etc. The numbers of Minority to Caucasian criminals, based on a pure numbers analysis - there is no comparison. This may be entering a total different argument altogether, but along with those facts, I remembered a study I read recently that said, "By their mid-30's, 30 percent of black men with no more than a high school education have served time in prison, and 60 percent of dropouts have, Mr. Western said." There's a whole list of disturbing statistics like this... As of June 30, 2007, the incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,406 per 100,000 residents, for women 136 per 100,000 residents. The rate for white men was 773 per 100,000, for black men 4,618 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,747 per 100,000. The rate for white women was 95 per 100,000, for black women 348 per 100,000, and for Hispanic women 146 per 100,000. Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 7, Table 10. # Of the 253,300 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses at yearend 2005, 113,500 (44.8%) were black, 51,100 (20.2%) were Hispanic, and 72,300 (28.5%) were white. Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and West, Heather C., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2008), NCJ224280, p. 21, Appendix Table 10. # "Of the 2.3 million inmates in custody, 2.1 million were men and 208,300 were women (table 9). Black males represented the largest percentage (35.4%) of inmates held in custody, followed by white males (32.9%) and Hispanic males (17.9%). "Over a third (33.8%) of the total male custody population was ages 20 to 29 (appendix table 10). The largest percentage of black (35.5%) and Hispanic (39.9%) males held in custody were ages 20 to 29. White males ages 35 to 44 accounted for the largest percentage (30.1%) of the white male custody population. "The largest percentage (35.9%) of the female custody population was ages 30 to 39. Over a third of white females (35.9%) were ages 30 and 39. The largest percentage (36.8%) of Hispanic females in custody was ages 20 to 29." Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and Couture, Heather, Prisoners at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 7. # "The custody incarceration rate for black males was 4,618 per 100,000. Hispanic males were incarcerated at a rate of 1,747 per 100,000. Compared to the estimated numbers of black, white, and Hispanic males in the U.S. resident population, black males (6 times) and Hispanic males (a little more than 2 times) were more likely to be held in custody than white males. At midyear 2007 the estimated incarceration rate of white males was 773 per 100,000. "Across all age categories, black males were incarcerated at higher rates than white or Hispanic males. Black males ages 30 to 34 had the highest custody incarceration rate of any race, age, or gender group at midyear 2007." Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and Couture, Heather, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 7. # "Changes in the incarceration rates for men and women by race were associated with changes to the overall composition of the custody population at midyear 2007. Black men had an incarceration rate of 4,618 per 100,000 U.S. residents at midyear 2007, down from 4,777 at midyear 2000. For white men, the midyear 2007 incarceration rate was 773 per 100,000 U.S. residents, up from 683 at midyear 2000. The ratio of the incarceration rates of black men to white men declined from 7 to 6 during this period. "Changes in the incarceration rates for women were more distinct. At midyear 2000, black women were incarcerated at a rate 6 times that of white women (or 380 per 100,000 U.S. residents versus 63 per 100,000 U.S. residents). By June 30, 2007, the incarceration rate for black women declined to 3.7 times that of white women (or 348 versus 95). An 8.4% decline in the incarceration rate for black women and a 51% increase in the rate for white women accounted for the overall decrease in the incarceration rate of black women relative to white women at midyear 2007." Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and Couture, Heather, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 8. # "At midyear 2007, the incarceration rate of black women held in custody (prison or jail) was 348 per 100,000 U.S. residents compared to 146 Hispanic women and 95 white women. With the exception of females ages 55 to 59, black women were held in custody at higher rates than Hispanic or white women across all age categories." Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and Couture, Heather, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2008), NCJ221944, p. 8. # "Offense distributions differed between sentenced male and female State prisoners. More than half of males (53%) were sentenced for violent offenses, compared to 34% of females. Among State prisoners, sentenced females were more likely than sentenced males to be sentenced for property (31% vs. 20%) and drug offenses (29% vs. 19%). "There were also differences in offense distributions at yearend 2004 by race and Hispanic origin. A majority of black (53%) and Hispanic (54%) prisoners were sentenced for violent offenses, compared to about half (50%) of white prisoners. Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be sentenced for drug offenses (23% of blacks, 21% of Hispanics, and 15% of whites). Whites were more likely (26%) than blacks (18%) or Hispanics (18%) to be sentenced for property offenses." Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 8. # According to the US Census Bureau, the US population in 2000 was 281,421,906. Of that, 194,552,774 (69.1%) were white; 33,947,837 (12.1%) were black; and 35,305,818 (12.5%) were of Hispanic origin. Additionally, 2,068,883 (0.7%) were Native American, and 10,123,169 (3.8%) were Asian. Source: US Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File for states, Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United States: 2000 (PHC-T-a) Table 1, from the web at http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1/tab01.txt , last accessed September 8, 2001. # "Similar to men in the general prison population (93%), parents held in the nation's prisons at midyear 2007 were mostly male (92%) (not shown in table). More than 4 in 10 fathers were black, about 3 in 10 were white, and about 2 in 10 were Hispanic (appendix table 2). An estimated 1,559,200 children had a father in prison at midyear 2007; nearly half (46%) were children of black fathers. "Almost half (48%) of all mothers held in the nation's prisons at midyear 2007 were white, 28% were black, and 17% were Hispanic. Of the estimated 147,400 children with a mother in prison, about 45% had a white mother. A smaller percentage of the children had a black (30%) or Hispanic (19%) mother." Source: Glaze, Lauren E. and Maruschak, Laura M., "Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children" (Washington, DC: USDOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Aug. 2008), NCJ222984, p. 2. # "Fifty-eight percent of offenders admitted under 18 in 1997 were black and 25% were white, representing a gradual change from 1990, when blacks comprised 61% of admissions and whites 21% (table 6). The racial characteristics of persons admitted under 18 had shifted more dramatically between 1985 and 1990. During this period the percentage of black admissions increased from 53% to 62%, and the percentage of whites fell from 32% to 21%. Hispanic admissions, as a proportion of all persons under age 18 entering State prison, have remained stable from 1985 to 1997." Source: Strom, Kevin J., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-1997 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, February 2000), p. 6. # "Of the Nation's 72.3 million minor children in 1999, 2.1% had a parent in State or Federal prison. Black children (7.0%) were nearly 9 times more likely to have a parent in prison than white children (0.8%). Hispanic children (2.6%) were 3 times as likely as white children to have an inmate parent." Source: Mumola, Christopher J., US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, August 2000), p. 2. # "During 1985, an estimated 20 white males and 30 black males under age 18 were admitted to State prison for drug offenses. In 1997 black males under age 18 outnumbered white males of the same age by more than 5 to 1 (640 to 120 admissions for drug offenses)." Source: Strom, Kevin J., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-1997 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, February 2000), p. 5. # "Fifty-eight percent of offenders admitted under 18 in 1997 were black and 25% were white, representing a gradual change from 1990, when blacks comprised 61% of admissions and whites 21% (table 6). The racial characteristics of persons admitted under 18 had shifted more dramatically between 1985 and 1990. During this period the percentage of black admissions increased from 53% to 62%, and the percentage of whites fell from 32% to 21%. Hispanic admissions, as a proportion of all persons under age 18 entering State prison, have remained stable from 1985 to 1997." Source: Strom, Kevin J., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-1997 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, February 2000), p. 6. # Nationwide, one in every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in prison. In five states, between one in 13 and one in 14 black men is in prison. This compares to one in 180 white men. Source: Human Rights Watch, "Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000), from their website at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm # Nationwide, black men are sent to prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men. Source: Human Rights Watch, "Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000), from their website at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm # At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation's criminal justice system than the total number in college. This and other factors have led some scholars to conclude that, "crime control policies are a major contributor to the disruption of the family, the prevalence of single parent families, and children raised without a father in the ghetto, and the 'inability of people to get the jobs still available.'" Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 716. # "Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. Yet blacks comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison. The solution to this racial inequity is not to incarcerate more whites, but to reduce the use of prison for low-level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment." Source: Human Rights Watch, "Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000), from their website at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm # "Among jail inmates in 2002 who had ever been tested for HIV, Hispanics (2.9%) were more than 3 times as likely as whites (0.8%) and twice as likely as blacks (1.2%) to report being HIV positive." Source: Maruschak, Laura M. "HIV In Prisons and Jails, 2002," NCJ-205333 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2004), p. 1. # "The percentage of jail inmates reporting that they were HIV positive varied by level of prior drug use. Of jail inmates who reported never using drugs, 0.4% were HIV positive. An estimated 1.5% of inmates who had ever used drugs, 1.5% of those who used drugs in the month before their current offense, 3.2% of those who had used a needle to inject drugs, and 7.5% of those who had shared a needle reported being HIV positive." Source: Maruschak, Laura M. "HIV In Prisons and Jails, 2002," NCJ-205333 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2004), p. 9. # "Those inmates held for a property offense in local jails reported the highest HIV positive rate (1.8% ) (table 10). Drug offenders reported a slightly lower rate (1.6%). The percentage of public-order offenders who were HIV positive was 1.1%; the percentage of violent offenders, 0.7%." Source: Maruschak, Laura M. "HIV In Prisons and Jails, 2002," NCJ-205333 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2004), p. 9. # "In 2002 the number of AIDS-related deaths in local jails was 42, down from 58 in 2000 (table 11). The rate of AIDS-related deaths was down from 9 per 100,000 inmates in 2000 to 6 per 100,000 in 2002. Of the 42 inmates who died from AIDS-related illnesses in 2002, 38 were male and 4 were female. Those who died from AIDS-related illnesses were most likely black (31 inmate deaths) and between the ages 35 and 44 (21 inmate deaths). Over the 3-year period beginning in 2000, a total of 155 local jail inmates died from AIDS-related causes." Source: Maruschak, Laura M. "HIV In Prisons and Jails, 2002," NCJ-205333 (Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2004), p. 10. # "The racially disproportionate nature of the war on drugs is not just devastating to black Americans. It contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal protection of the laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional democracy; it exposes and deepens the racial fault lines that continue to weaken the country and belies its promise as a land of equal opportunity; and it undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the criminal justice system. Urgent action is needed, at both the state and federal level, to address this crisis for the American nation." Source: Key Recommendations from Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, June 2000), from the web at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-reco.htm # "Our criminal laws, while facially neutral, are enforced in a manner that is massively and pervasively biased. The injustices of the criminal justice system threaten to render irrelevant fifty years of hard-fought civil rights progress." Source: Welch, Ronald H. and Angulo, Carlos T., Justice On Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System (Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights / Leadership Conference Education Fund, May 2000), p. v. # "When incarceration rates by State (excluding Federal inmates) are estimated separately by gender, race, and Hispanic origin, male rates are found to be 10 times higher than female rates; black rates 5-1/2 times higher than white rates; and Hispanic rates nearly 2 times higher than white rates (table 14)." Source: Harrison, Paige M., & Beck, Allen J., PhD, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, May 2006) (NCJ213133), p. 10. # Regarding State prison population growth from 1990 through 2000, the US Dept. of Justice reports, "Overall, the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates (table 19)." Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2001 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, July 2002), p. 13. # According to the federal Household Survey, "most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998." And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%. Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Summary Report 1998 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999), p. 13; Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 343, Table 4.10, p. 435, Table 5.48, and p. 505, Table 6.52; Beck, Allen J., Ph.D. and Mumola, Christopher J., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1998 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 10, Table 16; Beck, Allen J., PhD, and Paige M. Harrison, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 11, Table 16. # Among persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts, whites were less likely than African-Americans to be sent to prison. Thirty-three percent (33%) of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51% of African-American defendants received prison sentences. It should also be noted that Hispanic felons are included in both demographic groups rather than being tracked separately so no separate statistic is available. Source: Durose, Matthew R., and Langan, Patrick A., Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1998 Statistical Tables (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, December 2001), Table 25, available on the web at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/scsc98st.htm, last accessed December 21, 2001. # At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation's criminal justice system than the total number in college. This and other factors have led some scholars to conclude that, "crime control policies are a major contributor to the disruption of the family, the prevalence of single parent families, and children raised without a father in the ghetto, and the 'inability of people to get the jobs still available.'" Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 716. # "Since 1997, 16 states have implemented reforms to their felony disenfranchisement policies "These reforms have resulted in the restoration of voting rights to an estimated 621,400 persons "By 2004, the total number of people disenfranchised due to a felony conviction had risen to 5.3 million "Among those disenfranchised, 74% are currently living in the community "In 2004, 1 in 12 African Americans was disenfranchised because of a felony conviction, a rate nearly five times that of non-African Americans "Voting is linked with reduced recidivism; one study shows that 27 percent of non-voters were rearrested, compared with 12 percent of voters" Source: King, Ryan S., "A Decade of Reform: Felony Disenfranchisement Policy in the United States" (Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2006), p. 2. # "Thirteen percent of all adult black men -- 1.4 million -- are disenfranchised, representing one-third of the total disenfranchised population and reflecting a rate of disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. Election voting statistics offer an approximation of the political importance of black disenfranchisement: 1.4 million black men are disenfranchised compared to 4.6 million black men who voted in 1996." Source: Fellner, Jamie and Mauer, Marc, "Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States" (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch & The Sentencing Project, 1998), p. 8. Election statistics cited are from the US Census Bureau, "Voting and Registration in the Election of November 1996" (p20-504), July 1998. # One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 years old is under correctional supervision or control. Source: Mauer, M. & Huling, T., Young Black Americans and the Criminal Justice System: Five Years Later (Washington DC: The Sentencing Project, 1995). # "In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among black males (32.2%) and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among white males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for white males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and white females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison." Source: Bonczar, Thomas P., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Prevalence of Imprisonment in the US Population, 1974-2001," NCJ197976 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 2003), p. 8. # In 1986, before mandatory minimums for crack offenses became effective, the average federal drug offense sentence for blacks was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal drug offense sentence was 49% higher for blacks. Source: Meierhoefer, B. S., The General Effect of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences Imposed (Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1992), p. 20. # Regardless of similar or equal levels of illicit drug use during pregnancy, black women are 10 times more likely than white women to be reported to child welfare agencies for prenatal drug use. Source: Neuspiel, D.R., "Racism and Perinatal Addiction," Ethnicity and Disease, 6: 47-55 (1996); Chasnoff, I.J., Landress, H.J., & Barrett, M.E., "The Prevalence of Illicit-Drug or Alcohol Use during Pregnancy and Discrepancies in Mandatory Reporting in Pinellas County, Florida," New England Journal of Medicine, 322: 1202-1206 (1990). # Due to harsh new sentencing guidelines, such as 'three-strikes, you're out,' "a disproportionate number of young Black and Hispanic men are likely to be imprisoned for life under scenarios in which they are guilty of little more than a history of untreated addiction and several prior drug-related offenses... States will absorb the staggering cost of not only constructing additional prisons to accommodate increasing numbers of prisoners who will never be released but also warehousing them into old age." Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 71 http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/64 What I find most disturbing about these statistics, which I've shared with many before, is their general reaction is, "Well, I guess Black people really do commit more crimes," not, "Wow, I guess Black people are targeted more," which I can see as the only logical conclusion for figures that disproportionate. People who deny racial profiling or a tendency for police to target minorities are either simply in denial or completely oblivious to the actual numbers and rates. As for Caucasians complaining about police brutality and mistreatment, I think the biggest reason that you don't often hear about this is because it doesn't really get as much publicity as when a minority is a victim of it. To add to that, from what I've seen, many Caucasians are poorly represented when they do make their complaints. Many of these said people have just as little resources available to them as their minority counter-parts, and while admittedly they're probably not targeted as much, their part in this issue is generally swept under the rug because minorities are perceived to have it harder. Frankly, I believe it is an issue of class more than it is skin color or ethnicity. I have Caucasian friends who are part of Hispanic gangs who are mistreated in the exact same style; in fact, from what I've heard, they're often singled out in the process because they're the only Caucasian amongst the group. Then of course I have more than a few Caucasian friends who are lower-working class people that are targeted quite often as well. I think in general, the police are going after those who they think will commit crimes; in some areas that happens to be minorities, in others it can be anyone that falls below whatever arbitrary poverty line has been set. I'd have to agree with you that police seemed to be trained to treat anyone in an urban area as a suspect, but I can't honestly say with real sincerity that I don't feel like they're targeting race with statistics like that. Sure, arguments can be made that since more Hispanic and Black males fall below the "poverty" line than Caucasians, they're more pre-disposed to crime; but I feel like there's thinly veiled racism in that statement, not to mention it completely discounts the Caucasians that live alongside those same Blacks and Hispanics who aren't being targeted nearly as much--to the point where many disregard mistreatment by the police toward them all-together. I can ask a question, that I think no one will want to answer, and will involve race very heavily... What do you think would be happening right now if Mr. Grant was a middle-class, white male, and this very same thing happened to him? Personally I don't want to speculate, but I think there would definitely be a difference, and that's unsettling. QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxidizer Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The sad, but true, moral is this - if you don't want to get shot, don't be a f*cking thug. Yeah, because that fed is so much better. He's a f*cking murderer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now