Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[Raavi]

Actually, the coroner ruled it a homicide with aggravating factors and pointed to the same health issues I pointed to.

 

Homicide is still homicide. Fact remains officer f*cker who already had been on the receiving end of two civil rights lawsuits involving African American individuals choked unarmed and non-violent Mr. Garner until the death followed.

 

And you are looking at the wrong statistics there my friend. US Attorneys are FEDERAL prosecutors and prosecute FEDERAL crimes. It is very rare that a US Attorney is going to go near a case that will not secure a conviction let alone secure an indictment. I would implore you to review the cases of STATE crimes and STATE grand juries, as that is what this case fell under.

 

It is still extremely rare for a Grand Jury not to indict. Judge Sol Wachtler it was I believe, once famously remarked that you can indict a ham sandwich. Yet here we have two consecutive cases of police brutality resulting in the death of the assaulted where the Grand Jury Fails to indict the killer on anything. If the District Attorney wants an indictment, you bet your ass he can get one.

 

 

Non-violent? He resisted arrest pretty clearly. Maybe it's you who should watch the "damn video" pal.

 

Ah so waving arms around constitutes violence all of a sudden, and this gives police carte blanche to kill. Good to know, "pal". Word to the wise, don't even think about ever filling this in on any academic test or paper, you'll flunk miserably.

 

 

And nope, I don't. It is not a) murder nor is it b) manslaughter. Civil rights violation? Absolutely, and the Justice Department is pursuing that.

 

Not so fast there, 'pall'.

 

Manslaughter:

 

Murder, no that can't be proven. But let's examine the stature on Manslaughter, shall we?

 

§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.

A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:

1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or

2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,

unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three

of section 125.05; or

3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

So to translate a second-degree manslaughter charge in the great state of New York has only two requirements.

1. The individual charged must have caused the death of the victim. √

2. The individual charged must have done so via reckless means. √

Let's examine the evidence.

Officer f*cker choked Mr Garner till the death followed, so check. Officer f*cker did so by using a practice banned by the department that is known to result in the death of those subjected to it. So check again! What do you know, we have enough for AT LEAST a second-degree manslaughter indictment! Yet there was no indictment whatsoever.. Hmm, what's wrong with this picture..

 

Justifiable homicides are more than just police killings. That would refer to anyone who kills someone in what the law of a state (in the US) refers to as "justifiably".

 

Eh, nope. What I was referring to was justifiable homicides by law enforcement.

 

I would also question your statistics, given that many different US states have different standards of what is justifiable homicide, and furthemore not ever homicide is classified as such for statistics purposes unless there is a court process involved, I have reservations as to the veracity and relevance of your statistics.

 

Questioning the Federal Bureau of Investigation now, are we? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2009-2013.xls

 

461 "justifiable homicides" by law enforcement. It's right there written in stone. In all actuality this number is much higher but these are the once reported to the FBI by police departments all over the United States.

 

Especially given the fact that the US has significantly more violent, gun related crime than any of those countries combined.

 

Something something gun control.

 

Even non-gun related the numbers in the US dwarf those places, even per capita and not just because the US has a larger population.

 

I'm honestly at a loss here. Ever heard of proportionality? Hell, even if we were to combine the entire EU population and crime wise (both at least twice as high as the US') and set that off against the number of people killed by law enforcement, the US would comparatively still disproprotionaly dwarf the EU in people killed by law enforcement.

 

Not that that at all should come as a surprise considering we have people sporting badges like the wankstain that killed Tamir Rice, who was deemed unfit for duty, yet was able to find employment at another precinct and shoot and kill a 12 year old with a toy gun within 2 f*cking seconds of arriving at the scene.

[Docfaustino]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/meet-dan-donovan-the-prosecutor-who-let-eric-garner-s-killer-walk.html

[Dingdongs]

 

I'll keep it short as I am on my phone.

Everyone's aware of Garner's medical conditions and it certainly may have played a role in his death but the point is he repeatedly gasped 'I can't breathe'. The cop should have let go and then arrested him. Because the time in which Garner takes to catch his breath would be enough for the cop to arrest him and it isn't like Garner would have been a hard person to catch anyways as he was obese.

And no one is denying Garner committed a crime. It was a petty crime but it did not deserve death. He was not even armed. The officer deliberately overreacted and should have been charged for murder.

 

I don't disagree with you. I am not defending Pantaleo's actions. I have said many times he was wrong. But it isn't murder nor is it manslaughter; it's a violation of Garner's civil rights.

 

 

 

It is still extremely rare for a Grand Jury not to indict. Judge Sol Wachtler it was I believe, once famously remarked that you can indict a ham sandwich. Yet here we have two consecutive cases of police brutality resulting in the death of the assaulted where the Grand Jury Fails to indict the killer on anything. If the District Attorney wants an indictment, you bet your ass he can get one.

 

 

It is NOT rare for a grand jury not to indict in police cases. You continue with hyperbole all you want but as I detailed earlier, indicting police just doesn't happen. It sets an awful precedent and interferes with the ability of the police department to enforce the law and conduct their duties. And for the umpteenth time, I believe Pantaleo should be charged w/ federal civil rights violations.

 

 

 

 

Ah so waving arms around constitutes violence all of a sudden, and this gives police carte blanche to kill. Good to know, "pal". Word to the wise, don't even think about ever filling this in on any academic test or paper, you'll flunk miserably.[

 

Resisting arrest is resisting arrest. No way around that. I would happily stake my credibility in an academic institution on that and have written similar thoughts to what I've expressed here at my university and have never "flunked miserably". You on the other hand display no inclination of having an education when you continue to call Pantaleo "Officer f*cker" like you are some 14 year old.

 

 

 

Not so fast there, 'pall'.

 

Manslaughter:

 

Murder, no that can't be proven. But let's examine the stature on Manslaughter, shall we?

 

§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.

A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:

1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or

2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,

unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three

of section 125.05; or

3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

So to translate a second-degree manslaughter charge in the great state of New York has only two requirements.

1. The individual charged must have caused the death of the victim. √

2. The individual charged must have done so via reckless means. √

Let's examine the evidence.

Officer f*cker choked Mr Garner till the death followed, so check. Officer f*cker did so by using a practice banned by the department that is known to result in the death of those subjected to it. So check again! What do you know, we have enough for AT LEAST a second-degree manslaughter indictment! Yet there was no indictment whatsoever.. Hmm, what's wrong with this picture..

Again, you can go look at the NYS Penal Law all you want and quote things from it, but at the end of the day it's precedent that matters. Police officers in ANY state are almost NEVER charged with manslaughter when a suspect dies in the pursuit of their official duties. Pantaleo was on duty with his badge around his neck and that's all there is to it. He violated Garner's civil rights and should be charged accordingly through the Justice Department. To quote what I said on the last page -

 

A very good example of this would be the Rodney King incident. Even in that incident the grand jury DID NOT indict the officers for state criminal violations. That is just how high the standard is for indicting cops for criminal violations. However, all of those cops were terminated AND the ones who were determined by the federal jury to have met the standard for federal civil rights violations did 32 months in federal lockup. I think the Justice Department has a very good case to go after Pantaleo and at least get him convicted federally and have him do some time for that. Because legally speaking, he didn't murder Eric Garner. He did, however, violate his federal civil rights for the reasons I have already stated.

 

Read it and understand. If you want to go on a speaking circuit to American law schools and tell them that the stare decisis on charging cops with manslaughter is wrong and shoudl be changed, be my guest. I'm not here to argue that with you. Not my opinion, but the opinion of courts for a very long time.

 

 

 

Questioning the Federal Bureau of Investigation now, are we? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_14_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2009-2013.xls

 

461 "justifiable homicides" by law enforcement. It's right there written in stone. In all actuality this number is much higher but these are the once reported to the FBI by police departments all over the United States.

 

 

From 2009-2013, great. So you are going to actually argue that all 461 constitute "murders" and "reckless killings" by the police? Are they all akin to the case of Pantaleo? I would doubt it. If you can demonstrate that all or even a majority of them were remotely comparable to the Pantaleo case then you know what, you win the argument.

 

If you really want to get into a game of statistics, how about you take into account that this year alone, 107 US Cops have died so far in pursuit of their official duties. 105 in 2013, 126 in 2012, 179 in 2011 (the most dangerous year for law enforcement since 2001), 177 in 2010, and 140 in 2009. So add that up and you get 727 American cops killed in the same period you showed us, 2009 - 2013.

 

How many European cops died in the same time period? I would wager a lot less, given in the short time I just searched such info is not even readily available on europa.eu - your comparing Europe to the United States on metrics of crime control/gun policy is laughable and frankly quite stupid. You can go back and fourth comparing different European countries all day. Britain banned guns, and gun crime went down. But, knife crime went up; murder rate stays similar. Switzerland has a huge proliferation of firearms and enjoys little violent crime. There are other European nations which ban guns and enjoy low crime/murder rate, and that is good for them. Unfortunately they are not the United States, which has a culture of firearms ownership and acceptance for its entire existence. If you want to debate gun control we can do that in another thread, but long story short - it's a non-starter in this conversation to compare European phenomena to the US, where even comparing two states gets you pretty much nowhere in a discussion.

 

I would encourage those of you who continue to trash police to watch this video in its entirety. This video is shown at many police academies, FLETC, the FBI academy, and is also shown to new cops internationally.

 

 

 

That is what happens when you continue to disparage police and demonize them to a point where they will not even use their weapon on someone who is ruffling through their car. That cop lost his life and if this bullsh*t attitude from people like you continue, then many more will die in a similar fashion.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Irviding

[Ducard]

 

I'll keep it short as I am on my phone.

 

Everyone's aware of Garner's medical conditions and it certainly may have played a role in his death but the point is he repeatedly gasped 'I can't breathe'. The cop should have let go and then arrested him. Because the time in which Garner takes to catch his breath would be enough for the cop to arrest him and it isn't like Garner would have been a hard person to catch anyways as he was obese.

 

And no one is denying Garner committed a crime. It was a petty crime but it did not deserve death. He was not even armed. The officer deliberately overreacted and should have been charged for murder.

I don't disagree with you. I am not defending Pantaleo's actions. I have said many times he was wrong. But it isn't murder nor is it manslaughter; it's a violation of Garner's civil rights.

 

The reason many people call his actions as "murder" is because like you said his actions were wrong. He could have easily dealt with it in a more efficient way. He deliberately killed the guy despite the guy pleading that he could not breathe, that is murder. Yes, officers in the may have killed suspects in the past, but how many of them had no choice? I am pretty sure most of the time the suspects were armed and hostile, Garner was the exact opposite.

 

 

 

 

That is what happens when you continue to disparage police and demonize them to a point where they will not even use their weapon on someone who is ruffling through their car. That cop lost his life and if this bullsh*t attitude from people like you continue, then many more will die in a similar fashion.

Firstly that video is a completely different situation. The guy in the truck was armed and was hostile. Garner wasn't. (Like I already stated before)

 

Secondly, no one is saying that Cops should not use lethal force. The main point here is that cops should know when to use lethal force. Cops can use lethal force as long as the suspect is armed and hostile, at least that's how I see it.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Ducard

[Dingdongs]

 

 

The reason many people call his actions as "murder" is because like you said his actions were wrong. He could have easily dealt with it in a more efficient way. He deliberately killed the guy despite the guy pleading that he could not breathe, that is murder. Yes, officers in the may have killed suspects in the past, but how many of them had no choice? I am pretty sure most of the time the suspects were armed and hostile, Garner was the exact opposite.

 

 

He could've dealt with it differently and he was wrong. You are right. And no, he didn't deliberately kill the guy. That's just plain false. I don't think he had no choice other than to kill him. It was wrong. But for the reasons I have detailed many times it isn't murder and calling it even manslaughter is shaky in the context of stare decisis w/ regard to police officers in the US.

 

 

Firstly that video is a completely different situation. The guy in the truck was armed and was hostile. Garner wasn't. (Like I already stated before)

Secondly, no one is saying that Cops should not use lethal force. The main point here is that cops should know when to use lethal force. Cops can use lethal force as long as the suspect is armed and hostile, at least that's how I see it.

 

It is different but it applies to the wider argument that people want to hamstring police to a point where they feel if they engage someone they will end up like Darren Wilson, shunned and having his life threatened. The guy was acting erratic and resisting arrest, went back to the car, and gunned down the officer because that officer did not want to shoot him for fear that the man was unarmed. That attitude is going to get more cops killed similarly to him and it will be people who criticize and demonize police like they did to now former Officer Wilson that are responsible.

[Raavi]

It is NOT rare for a grand jury not to indict in police cases. You continue with hyperbole all you want but as I detailed earlier, indicting police just doesn't happen. It sets an awful precedent.

 

Police are now essentially given carte blanch to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. And you don't see how this speaks to a larger and fundamental issue with US "Justice", how exactly? Oh wait..

 

 

"It sets an awful precedent"

 

 

Translation: "Prosecuting a guy who choked someone to death and getting Justice for the family, Brrr that might set precedent and help other cases the likes of the Tamir Rise case, Brr the sheer thought is giving me the jimmies!"

 

You're more concerned with stopping precedent at any cost than there being justice. Despicable comes to mind.

 

 

and interferes with the ability of the police department to enforce the law and conduct their duties.

 

So weeding out the bad apples and getting justice for their victim's families impedes with a police ability to enforce the law. Either you live in Buttf*ckingnowhereville Mississippi and your local police consists of ol' Larry and his pal short Bob or you're talking out of your ass, whilst the first makes for a great mental picture, I'd wager it is the second. I'd argue that getting justice for cases like Tamir Rice and Eric Garner is actually going to help improve public perception of your buddies blue, by quite a lot.

 

And for the umpteenth time, I believe Pantaleo should be charged w/ federal civil rights violations.

 

Pulling a man's trousers down and fondling his testicles, which your best buddy also did is a clear civil rights violation. Choking a man to death is a criminal act, a felony, any other individual would at the very least get their day in court for, likely a lengthy prison sentence.

 

 

Resisting arrest is resisting arrest.

 

An egg is an egg. A book is a book. Someone with his head up his ass, is someone with his head up his ass. We're playing word games here, no?

 

There is a clear difference between resisting arrest and violently resisting arrest.

 

 

would happily stake my credibility in an academic institution on that and have written similar thoughts to what I've expressed here at my university and have never "flunked miserably".

 

Either you do in fact live in Buttf*ckingnowhereville, Mississippi and go to University there as well, or you're once again talking out of your ass. Once again I'm going to wager it's the latter. Waving one's arms around like Mr. Garner did does not constitute violence. Can waving arms around constitute violence of course, it's called punching.

 

 

You on the other hand display no inclination of having an education when you continue to call Pantaleo "Officer f*cker" like you are some 14 year old.

 

This'll be extra hilarious later down this ripping apart of your bullsh*t, so sit tight.

 

 

again, you can go look at the NYS Penal Law all you want and quote things from it, but at the end of the day it's precedent that matters.

 

Precedent has to be set, that there hasn't whilst there have been dozens of people killed by law enforcement in fashions and circumstances that would have gotten other people life in prison if not the needle is absolutely ridiculous and once again speaks to the larger and fundamental issue at hand here..

 

Police officers in ANY state are almost NEVER charged with manslaughter when a suspect dies in the pursuit of their official duties. Pantaleo was on duty with his badge around his neck and that's all there is to it.

 

So US police officers enjoy more immunity than diplomats. Well done, America.

 

They're trusted with upholding and enforcing the law, yet they're going around breaking the laws, committing felonies even and getting away with it. A badge doesn't mean sh*t, especially if you're pissing on it by breaking the very laws you've sworn to enforce. If anything police should be held to even stricter standards than regular citizens.

 

From 2009-2013, great. So you are going to actually argue that all 461 constitute "murders" and "reckless killings" by the police? Are they all akin to the case of Pantaleo? I would doubt it. If you can demonstrate that all or even a majority of them were remotely comparable to the Pantaleo case then you know what, you win the argument.

 

If you really want to get into a game of statistics, how about you take into account that this year alone, 107 US Cops have died so far in pursuit of their official duties. 105 in 2013, 126 in 2012, 179 in 2011 (the most dangerous year for law enforcement since 2001), 177 in 2010, and 140 in 2009. So add that up and you get 727 American cops killed in the same period you showed us, 2009 - 2013.

 

461 in 2013 ALONE, 2102 in the period of 2009-2013. You have the audacity to accuse me of having enjoyed no education and condescendingly spout blatant juvenile ad hominem bullsh*t, yet you aren't able to read a f*cking basic elementary school level table? Bravo, pal.

As for being a cop being dangerous, it's not even in the top 10 of most Dangerous Professions in the United States.

 

I'll keep the gun control rebuttal for another thread.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

Police are now essentially given carte blanch to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. And you don't see how this speaks to a larger and fundamental issue with US "Justice", how exactly? Oh wait..

 

 

No, they aren't and your reasoning for extrapolating that is beyond me, other than you trying to be the guy that "is allergic to bullsh*t" and make hyperbolic statements with no justification behind them. Again, you want to go on a speaking circuit to US law schools and get the next generation to reverse years of stare decisis be my guest. But that's not what the law is right now and that is not how we interpret it in the US.

 

 

 

Translation: "Prosecuting a guy who choked someone to death and getting Justice for the family, Brrr that might set precedent and help other cases the likes of the Tamir Rise case, Brr the sheer thought is giving me the jimmies!"

Go on a speaking circuit, what the f*ck do you want me to tell you?

 

 

So weeding out the bad apples and getting justice for their victim's families impedes with a police ability to enforce the law. Either you live in Buttf*ckingnowhereville Mississippi and your local police consists of ol' Larry and his pal short Bob or you're talking out of your ass, whilst the first makes for a great mental picture, I'd wager it is the second. I'd argue that getting justice for cases like Tamir Rice and Eric Garner is actually going to help improve public perception of your buddies blue, by quite a lot.

Actually I live in Washington, DC and am from New York - two places of which I really don't think could be remotely referred to as buttf*ck no where, but whatever. Watch the video I posted and tell me that's the environment you want to have in society, where cops are so afraid to engage suspects that are refusing to comply that they end up dead slowly choking on blood.

 

 

Pulling a man's trousers down and fondling his testicles, which your best buddy also did is a clear civil rights violation. Choking a man to death is a criminal act, a felony, any other individual would at the very least get their day in court for, likely a lengthy prison sentence.

Not when done in pursuit of official police duties in the United States. Again, go take out a loan at the bank, get a bus, and go on a speaking circuit or go to law school and change the stare decisis.

 

 

Either you do in fact live in Buttf*ckingnowhereville, Mississippi and go to University there as well, or you're once again talking out of your ass. Once again I'm going to wager it's the latter. Waving one's arms around like Mr. Garner did does not constitute violence. Can waving arms around constitute violence of course, it's called punching.

Do you want a copy of my official transcripts from GW mailed to you? If you paypal me the cost of mailing and the cost of requesting it from the registrar I will be happy to get that to you.

 

Though I don't attend there nor know anyone who does, for the record, the University of Mississippi is a pretty well respected academic institution.

 

 

 

This'll be extra hilarious later down this ripping apart of your bullsh*t, so sit tight.

OK - Sitting tight at the ready.

 

 

Precedent has to be set, that there hasn't whilst there have been dozens of people killed by law enforcement in fashions and circumstances that would have gotten other people life in prison if the needle is absolutely ridiculous.

834 cops dead in the past 4 years in the US.

 

 

 

So US police officers enjoy more immunity than diplomats. Well done, America.

No, they are given legal ground to enforce the law in the pursuit of their official duties. If you really live in Vatican City they have a lot of money in the vault there, they can probably loan you some to go on that speaking circuit I mentioned earlier so you can lobby to change the precedent and legal system in the US.

 

 

 

They're trusted with upholding and enforcing the law, yet they're going around breaking the laws, committing felonies even and getting away with it. A badge doesn't mean sh*t, especially if you're pissing on it by breaking the very laws you've sworn to enforce. If anything police should be held to even stricter standards than regular citizens.

 

 

I agree, and that's why Pantaleo will be thrown off the force and charged with civil rights violations. If Garner died solely from the chokehold, he'd have been charged with manslaughter. That is not the case here. If you want to take that up with the NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and dispute the validity of their report here is their contact info. But that is the #1, primary, chief, principal reason why Pantaleo was not charged.

 

OCME Main Office (Manhattan Office)
520 First Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Primary: 212.447.2030
Secondary: 718.804.8050

 

 

Staten Island Office (where Garner died and where his autopsy was probably conducted)

 

Staten Island (Richmond County)

460 Brielle Avenue
Staten Island, New York 10314
Primary: 718.668.0620

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2014 by Irviding

[Panz]

I am not going to dignify your race-baiting with a response, but if it were a "skinny" boy of ANY color, it would not have gone that way. Taking down a 350 lb man whether he is black, white, yellow, green, peach, olive, or violet requires a different response than taking down a "skinny boy a few inches shorter". So yup, it would have gone down very differently. What also would've made it go down differently is if Garner was not committing a crime and resisting arrest and disobeying police instructions, but f*ck the police right?

[email protected] race baiting. My point is that, if there are five cops or whatever standing around, then his size should not have mattered. Actually, why the hell did they need to bring him down to the ground, anyway? He wasn't being violent. I honestly don't see much resistance, either. He put his hands up and they decided to wrap him up by the neck and pull him down. And are you actually suggesting that if he wasn't accused for selling cigarettes on the street (afaik they were just accusing him here based on his history, but I haven't read up on this), maybe he wouldn't have died? Seriously? I've seen plenty of people resist arrest on camera, and they weren't tackled and choked to the ground. They were simply restrained in a humane manner, not compressed to the point of death.

 

 

Why? It's not me bringing them up. That would be the NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner who brought them up. Read about it if you want to learn more/speak on the veracity of the report. I know you study science and I honestly don't have a clue about it other than that this is what is listed in the autopsy report and stated by the experts. It is very hard for me to believe that he would've died if he didn't have those medical conditions.

The death was ruled a homicide, not death by obesity or asthma or heart disease.

 

Also, a chokehold compresses the airway and possibly the carotid arteries, depending. It's pretty hard to survive if your oxygen and blood flow to your brain are interrupted, despite any other health conditions.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Panz

[Docfaustino]

Irv, the protection of the officer's right to life is no more important that of the arrested civilians. Being a cop is dangerous but it's a danger you sign up for. Just because an officer is taking a risk pursuing a subject with a gun doesn't mean he doesn't have an obligation to do everything in his power to defuse the situation before ever drawing his firearm. Even something as simple as backing away from a man with a knife while he is 100 yards away on a civilian-less street corner has little chance of putting the officer in jeopardy. Yet it doesn't cross our officer's mind...

 

Admittedly I've been skimming posts because you guys started posting college essays so let me know if I'm mistaken

Edited December 6, 2014 by Docfaustino

[Dingdongs]

784

Edited December 6, 2014 by Irviding

[Dingdongs]

 

[email protected] race baiting. My point is that, if there are five cops or whatever standing around, then his size should not have mattered. Actually, why the hell did they need to bring him down to the ground, anyway? He wasn't being violent. I honestly don't see much resistance, either. He put his hands up and they decided to wrap him up by the neck and pull him down. And are you actually suggesting that if he wasn't accused for selling cigarettes on the street (afaik they were just accusing him here based on his history, but I haven't read up on this), maybe he wouldn't have died? Seriously? I've seen plenty of people resist arrest on camera, and they weren't tackled and choked to the ground. They were simply restrained in a humane manner, not compressed to the point of death.

 

I think we are getting carried away here - and I may have gone a little far in defending Pantaleo's actions but what I have been trying to say is that what he did really does not meet the precedent set for charging a cop with manslaughter. This is not just my opinion but that of the grand jury that examined in the case. I will say it again - if it were not for the fact that he had those aggravating factors that the Coroner's office listed, and that chokehold still killed Garner, a manslaughter charge would have been done.

 

 

 

 

The death was ruled a homicide, not death by obesity or asthma or heart disease.

It was ruled a homicide brought on by those factors. That's what is listed in the report. Also keep in mind even the most justifiable death possible will be ruled a homicide. So if someone busted into your house with a gun, shot 2 of your children and raped your wife, and you shot them, that is a homicide. So again, the mere fact that it was ruled a homicide does not = manslaughter or murder.

 

 

 

Also, a chokehold compresses the airway and possibly the carotid arteries, depending. It's pretty hard to survive if your oxygen and blood flow to your brain are interrupted, despite any other health conditions.

 

 

Interesting, that is likely why it was banned and should not have been used in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

Irv, the protection of the officer's right to life is no more important that of the arrested civilians. Being a cop is dangerous but it's a danger you sign up for. Just because an officer is taking a risk pursuing a subject with a gun doesn't mean he doesn't have an obligation to do everything in his power to defuse the situation before ever drawing his firearm. Even something as simple as backing away from a man with a knife while he is 100 yards away on a civilian-less street corner has little chance of putting the officer in jeopardy. Yet it doesn't cross our officer's mind...

 

Admittedly I've been skimming posts because you guys started posting college essays so let me know if I'm mistaken

 

Sure, but if the suspect is pursuing someone "with a gun" that officer's gun better be out already. I wrote two pages ago about those larger issues with police/how the recruiting/hiring standards as well as training should change. However it was ignored by most in this thread who just want to talk about hyperbolic, easy to say things like "cops are murderers" or "michael brown is a saint", making the debate look more like I'm Pantaleo's PBA rep and trying to defend what he did, which I'm not. I'm stating the rationale the grand jury used and also stating that it's highly unlikely every member of the grand jury, the prosecutor, the witnesses, and every NYPD cop (47 percent minority btw) is a racist. I think Pantaleo is a sh*tty cop and a sh*tty human being, but going down that road of going after cops for manslaughter is a very slippery slope and this is recognized by case law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raavi - I took a look at your FBI chart you are using to make your argument, and interestingly enough I found this footnote at the bottom -

 

• ¹ The killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.

The whole chart is noted with that "1" - so again, if you can find me some proof that these were all innocent, friendly people (convicted felon usually would discount that but not in all cases) and represent cases similar to Garner's, then I will happily "retire" from the debate.

 

 

 

condescendingly spout blatant juvenile ad hominem bullsh*t

I don't recall ever attacking you in an ad hominem manner until you started in saying I live in the backwoods of Mississippi and never went to school. Grow up. As for having the "audacity" you speak of, you were the one to call into question my education/living situation/location of my head in relation to my ass Not me. If anyone has "audacity" it's the guy who is supposed to be a full Moderator talking that kind of sh*t in the public forum.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Irviding

[Mr.Nedich]

My biggest gripe over racial tensions is the mass media. The headlines they pump out over things like Michael Brown make it look like the big bad white guy killed a sweet mid-teens. Regardless of the issue in Ferguson and other places, the media outlines are milking this recent trend in the media for all its worth with racially charged headlines and, in my opinion, it's only widening the divide between whites and blacks when you see headlines that always demonise a white cop for any ethnic deaths. Are there bad cops? Oh, no doubt. But this recent trend in downplaying a criminal's actions is just absurd. Part of the problem is the sketchy details (Like the mismatching details from the cop in Ferguson) and the other part is this willful ignorance of a criminal to focus on 'police brutality'. It's true excessive force happens (Like that guy who died in New York from the chokehold) but at other times, force is necessary because there's been a jump in violent crime as the decades go by and sometimes it's necessary. Anyway, I just find it ridiculous when some people seem to act as if cops shouldn't have guns, but what are they supposed to do when a bank robbery happens? Promise not to yell aggressively at the robber so as not to hurt his feelings? What people fail to take into account is WHY these stories happen, it's because they're such rare incidences. How many cops are there in the US and how many stories of this type of thing do you see happen? The media is just milking this stuff to make a big damn profit and they don't give a sh*t what their articles cause because they're profiteering off this stuff. Right wing, left wing, doesn't matter, they're making clickbait and it works, no matter how inaccurate some of those articles are. (Like the ones who linked to a guy who looked like Michael Brown in a robbery when it was apparently a different guy in a different store)

[Raavi]

Again, you want to go on a speaking circuit to US law schools and get the next generation to reverse years of stare decisis be my guest. But that's not what the law is right now and that is not how we interpret it in the US.

 

Stare decisis is not an inexorable doctrine, if it was it would essentially rig and therewith defeat the purpose of justice. Again if a prosecutor wants to indict he very much can. Precedent is for a judge to decide.

 

No, they aren't and your reasoning for extrapolating that is beyond me, other than you trying to be the guy that "is allergic to bullsh*t" and make hyperbolic statements with no justification behind them.

 

You provided me with plenty justification:

 

Police officers in ANY state are almost NEVER charged with manslaughter when a suspect dies in the pursuit of their official duties. Pantaleo was on duty with his badge around his neck and that's all there is to it.

So yes, US police officers are essentially given carte blanche to be judge, jury and executioner.

 

Go on a speaking circuit, what the f*ck do you want me to tell you?

 

We're not in a court room, we're in the off-topic section of a gaming forum. I don't want you to tell me anything, showing a bit of human decency would be nice though.

 

Watch the video I posted and tell me that's the environment you want to have in society, where cops are so afraid to engage suspects that are refusing to comply that they end up dead slowly choking on blood.

Apples and Oranges. Hostile armed Vietnam veteran or unarmed individual selling untaxed cigarettes. I'm not arguing that lethal force is inherently unjustified, I'm arguing that when it is used unjustly there need to be consequences proportionate to the action. Consequence proportionate to Second-degree manslaughter would be a lengthy prison sentence.

 

Do you want a copy of my official transcripts from GW mailed to you? If you paypal me the cost of mailing and the cost of requesting it from the registrar I will be happy to get that to you.

 

Though I don't attend there nor know anyone who does, for the record, the University of Mississippi is a pretty well respected academic institution.

 

You put 'similar' in your previous response, so far all I know you could've written "violently thrusting of the arms in a forward motion.... constitutes violence". I'll pass on wasting time and resources on confirming that.

 

Buttf*ckingnowhere, Mississippi isn't a real place, it's pretty damn obvious I was being facetious with that remark.

 

834 cops dead in the past 4 years in the US.

 

No, they are given legal ground to enforce the law in the pursuit of their official duties.

 

At least, 2102 people and more likely the number is in the high thousands killed by law enforcement in the United States over the course of the past 4 years. Your point being?

 

I must've missed the memo were fondling a man's testicles and choking an unarmed man to death qualified as pursuing official duties.

 

If Garner died solely from the chokehold, he'd have been charged with manslaughter. That is not the case here.

 

Except for one teeny tiny detail, he did pass away as a direct result of the chokehold, It's like saying he shot the guy, but the guy died because he choked on his own blood. He still died as a result of the bullet penetrating his body. The shooter still is the killer. In this case Pantaleo is still very much guilty of Second-degree manslaughter.

 

Of course the utterly negligent and passive response by both law enforcement present and EMS when the guy was at best unconscious if not dead already didn't help either. But whilst also despicable it's still Pantaleo's hands, arm rather that killed Mr. Garner.

 

Raavi - I took a look at your FBI chart you are using to make your argument, and interestingly enough I found this footnote at the bottom -

 

• ¹ The killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.

The whole chart is noted with that "1" - so again, if you can find me some proof that these were all innocent, friendly people (convicted felon usually would discount that but not in all cases) and represent cases similar to Garner's, then I will happily "retire" from the debate.

 

 

Well simple Marijuana possession can make someone a convicted felon. But I don't even care if they're innocent friendly people. Fatally shooting someone should be a last resort only used when all other options have been exhausted, as is the case in pretty much every developed country, which is why (and of course because the superior training) police involved fatalities are so low in the aforementioned countries in comparison to the United States.

 

There seems to be a shoot first ask questions later mentality. Which was the case once again in the latest tragic death by Law Enforcement of Rumain Brisbon, an unarmed individual reaching for a pill bottle.

 

I implore you to have a look at all these cases. Are some justified, of course, but a huge chunk of them are at the very least questionable.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_January_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_February_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_March_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_April_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_May_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_June_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_July_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_August_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_September_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_October_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_November_2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_December_2014

Sickening detail, this list isn't even the complete list.

I don't recall ever attacking you in an ad hominem manner until you started in saying I live in the backwoods of Mississippi and never went to school. Grow up. As for having the "audacity" you speak of, you were the one to call into question my education/living situation/location of my head in relation to my ass Not me. If anyone has "audacity" it's the guy who is supposed to be a full Moderator talking that kind of sh*t in the public forum.

 

Allow me to jug your memory. First there were no problems then you started condescendingly referring to me as pal which is passive aggressive. So in my rebuttal, I put "pal" in there but in quotation marks, as a not so silent hint that you were being an ass. Either you were/are too oblivious or didn't care, I don't know. It's only after you started questioning my education because I referred to a murderer as "f*cker", I started having a little fun with my rebuttal. Yet unlike you I followed my statements up by saying "... you're talking out of your ass, I'd wager is the second" Which essentially is just calling bullsh*t.

 

I'm all for leaving this unnecessary animosity behind, but that's very much a two-way street.

[make total destroy]

There is certainly not a pattern here, or anything.

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-unarmed-man-doorstep-brought-dinner-family/

[Docfaustino]

My biggest gripe over racial tensions is the mass media. The headlines they pump out over things like Michael Brown make it look like the big bad white guy killed a sweet mid-teens. Regardless of the issue in Ferguson and other places, the media outlines are milking this recent trend in the media for all its worth with racially charged headlines and, in my opinion, it's only widening the divide between whites and blacks when you see headlines that always demonise a white cop for any ethnic deaths. Are there bad cops? Oh, no doubt. But this recent trend in downplaying a criminal's actions is just absurd. Part of the problem is the sketchy details (Like the mismatching details from the cop in Ferguson) and the other part is this willful ignorance of a criminal to focus on 'police brutality'. It's true excessive force happens (Like that guy who died in New York from the chokehold) but at other times, force is necessary because there's been a jump in violent crime as the decades go by and sometimes it's necessary. Anyway, I just find it ridiculous when some people seem to act as if cops shouldn't have guns, but what are they supposed to do when a bank robbery happens? Promise not to yell aggressively at the robber so as not to hurt his feelings? What people fail to take into account is WHY these stories happen, it's because they're such rare incidences. How many cops are there in the US and how many stories of this type of thing do you see happen? The media is just milking this stuff to make a big damn profit and they don't give a sh*t what their articles cause because they're profiteering off this stuff. Right wing, left wing, doesn't matter, they're making clickbait and it works, no matter how inaccurate some of those articles are. (Like the ones who linked to a guy who looked like Michael Brown in a robbery when it was apparently a different guy in a different store)

 

Right. Let me break down the mainstream media for ya.

 

CNN - Spent 80 consecutive days covering a disappearing plane while countries all over the world were in uproar...reported on looting on the night of the Brown verdict but did not interview a single peaceful protester. Two days later they have two members of the NAACP speak for 20 minutes uninterrupted after being criticized for being very Faux-newsy in their coverage. CNN manages to piss of the left and the right for being inconsistent. You can't pander to everyone. Really, a "neutral" news station like CNN has two options in their coverage...they can either piss everyone off by taking sides at random in an attempt to look bias, while giving equal weight to issues where one side is clearly retarded (ex. evolution vs. creationism) for the sake of looking unbiased...or they can actually go with what they believe to be right. And I think in the end that would result in a better mix of coverage. The other factor and the reason I bring up the plane is they also have a new CEO as of last year that made a lot of dumb mistakes like fire Piers Morgan and hire cookie cutter reporters who refuse to report on anything interesting or anything that might shake up the status quo. They are SENSATIONIALIST media, who occassionally get something, right, and they inevitably add fuel to the fire.

 

MSNBC: All I have to say is, they were a liberal station who were conveniently purchased by a defense contractor for the entire duration of the Iraq War. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with our media. They are what I call a reactionary station because they exist only to counteract the growing power of Fox News. However, much like the democratic party has never been able to successfully go on the attack since the 40's, MSNBC has never mastered the aggressive approach necessary to win over American people and is mostly watched by college snobs and liberal politicos. They know their ratings are down a lot. Like Fox News, they are also not a news station, but a commentary station.

 

Vice News: Vice is one of the very best. It started as a general interest news website, reporting on wacky events that happened all over the world (like Senegalese lamb wrestling). Now they've taken a very hard turn to the left on the subject of police, too far for my tastes, and post up a new article every time a cop accidentally discharges his weapon. That being said they've been very very good on reporting the overreach of the NSA, TSA, et all, and they cover world news in a non-sensational way. They won't tell you ISIS is crossing the Mexican border and that's great.

 

Al Jazeera: Don't trust them on anything in the middle east. More likely to cover important world issues than American media, though. Their bias is anti-Israel, anti-Egypt, pro-Qatar, pro-Turkey.

 

Basically the problem starts and ends with something called the Fairness Doctrine. There used to be a rule issued by the Federal Communications Commission that each news channel, radio or television, had to air a certain amount of material covering one side of a story, and a certain amount of material covering another. There were also restrictions on flat out lying, which no longer happens today. The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine I can understand because it could seek to limit free speech, but without, we have six or seven companies whose only job is to spread their particular version of bias with no regard for the facts. The other problem is corporatism. If CNN only wants to make money, of course they will sensationalize the Michael Brown issue. Of course they will demonize Putin, ISIS, tell us Ebola is going to kill us all. The problem? That's not fair to an American people that isn't educated enough to figure out that they're more likely to be killed by a shark than an Ebola virus.

 

Here are some things the mainstream media will never report on: How millionaires buy out elections, an accurate view of the NSA and people's privacy, realistic, non-sensational views of foreign conflicts like ISIS and Ukraine. It's funny, there was a study done that said PUBLICLY funded news, like PBS, are the only stations that will report on important issues...

 

SIDENOTE: Make, he had a record and some pills on him so watch how fast it's explained away. Very sad.

 

My sister just put up a very powerful still image from a big city (won't say which one's) protests. With a couple protest mottos, such as...no justice, no peace, as hashtags. Very proud of her and I just wanted to share that with everyone. As much as we harp on the black and white of it, EVERYONE'S civil rights are at stake. White males have been killed at alarming rates too. On this very day, at a police protest, a white man with a knife standing in place was shot to death. No attempt was made to apprehend him. It may have taken several black victims to begin the discussion but at this point, it's about all of us. Regardless of what side of the argument one might fall on, MY entire generation is mobilized in a way we haven't seen since the antiwar and civil rights movement. I think that's wonderful.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-kill-man-armed-knife-hollywood-walk-fame-article-1.2035928

Edited December 7, 2014 by Docfaustino

[Mr.Nedich]

</snip>

 

All of this a good summary except Vice. They're pretty good in some areas, but in others some of their writers are pretty anti-authority biased, but I guess one can argue they've always been that way to an extent. I think Vice News is mostly good though.

 

[Docfaustino]

I said they've taken a hard left (practically anarchist) take on policing and it pisses me off too. I really don't understand in their little people-killed-by-police column why they're including actual criminals aiming guns. That's not going to stir any outrage.

 

But I understand the source of their anger so I don't really hold it against them. Thanks man.

[a20characterusername]

 

[...]The other factor and the reason I bring up the plane is they also have a new CEO as of last year that made a lot of dumb mistakes like fire Piers Morgan and hire cookie cutter reporters who refuse to report on anything interesting or anything that might shake up the status quo. They are SENSATIONIALIST media, who occassionally get something, right, and they inevitably add fuel to the fire.

 

How can you call firing Piers Morgan a dumb mistake if you dislike sensationalist media? I've always seen him as a 'liberal', more passive-aggressive version of Bill O'Reilly. Agreed with the rest of your post though, very well put together. As much as you can't really trust what you read online, you can't hardly trust anything you see on TV.

 

As much as I dislike MSNBC, Dylan Ratigan had some good moments.

 

(skip to about 2:45 on this one)

 

[make total destroy]

I said they've taken a hard left (practically anarchist) take on policing

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Docfaustino]

 

 

[...]The other factor and the reason I bring up the plane is they also have a new CEO as of last year that made a lot of dumb mistakes like fire Piers Morgan and hire cookie cutter reporters who refuse to report on anything interesting or anything that might shake up the status quo. They are SENSATIONIALIST media, who occassionally get something, right, and they inevitably add fuel to the fire.

 

How can you call firing Piers Morgan a dumb mistake if you dislike sensationalist media? I've always seen him as a 'liberal', more passive-aggressive version of Bill O'Reilly. Agreed with the rest of your post though, very well put together. As much as you can't really trust what you read online, you can't hardly trust anything you see on TV.

 

As much as I dislike MSNBC, Dylan Ratigan had some good moments.

 

(skip to about 2:45 on this one)

 

 

Thanks man! This is my expertise. People tend to dislike him for his views on gun control but I understand where he comes from. In 2010, 8,775 firearms murders happened all over America. In Britain, there were 58. So I never held it against him for wanting to debate US gun laws when the numbers looked so scary. TV is worse than the internet IMO. Even on a local level, the only thing the Nashville station covers is gruesome murders and freak accidents. That's not news, it's terrifying a populace. Unfortunately that plays out on a large scale to with disastrous effects (support for ground troops, miseducation, misinformation). You can disagree with Maddow but she's highly intelligent. Chris Hayes is kind of a dumbass school kid they should fire his ass.

 

 

I said they've taken a hard left (practically anarchist) take on policing

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

 

Yes. In a general ideological sense (nothing to do with police) I'll be the first to admit capitalism has serious drawbacks and when left unregulated can destroy an entire economic class. No argument from me. But to think anarchism in a country like America can remedy social ills is asinine. There wouldn't be a smooth transition. Many would die. And for what? There's no guarantee anything will be any different. In fact, what's to say the country wouldn't look like a neoliberal fantasy, with haves and have nots all over again?

 

Maybe Greece wants it. That's fine. They look a lot more like Uganda now than a functioning society since their old government failed them so by all means, go for it. I don't blame them for wanting voluntary non-state organizations to contribute to forming a functioning society. But what is going to stop tyrannical non-state actors from oppressing the "good" non-state actors? Nothing because there is no state and society would be a turmoil. I don't understand the desire to create a vicious power vacuum.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Docfaustino

[Clem Fandango]

When has anarchism ever lead to a power vacuum? Anarchism is a system of human organisation; it proposes a more heavily organised society than our current system of private property which encourages actors to pull against society for personal gain. Factionalism (what you're describing, basically) is a more a feature of liberal democracy than of any system that could be called left-wing, nominally or otherwise.

 

Hierarchy isn't inherently more stable, that's a fallacy. Anarchism has nothing to do with chaos. No rulers doesn't mean no rules etc.

[K^2]

Just FYI, Melchior, in case of anarchy, you're on my hit list. Nothing personal. Collapse of governments would mean misery, suffering, and death for hundreds of millions. I'd like certain anarchists to understand that for them it is a certainty. And since I don't expect to be very busy after gov'ts fall, I might as well contribute to that. Hope you're better at survival and combat than you are with logic.

[Dingdongs]

 

Stare decisis is not an inexorable doctrine, if it was it would essentially rig and therewith defeat the purpose of justice. Again if a prosecutor wants to indict he very much can. Precedent is for a judge to decide.

 

Sure, but it's for the lawyers to consider in making arguments and decisions to take cases to trial.

 

 

 

We're not in a court room, we're in the off-topic section of a gaming forum. I don't want you to tell me anything, showing a bit of human decency would be nice though.

 

 

Lol, yeah that's me who is rude and has no decency. You're the one that's been telling me I am an idiot and live in buttf*ck Mississippi.

 

 

Buttf*ckingnowhere, Mississippi isn't a real place, it's pretty damn obvious I was being facetious with that remark.

 

 

But you were intending to personally attack me. I don't give a f*ck about personal attacks. I think they make debating more interesting. But I didn't attack you first, you jumped down my throat calling me an idiot born in the Deep South with no education. I didn't say a word about your credentials.

 

 

 

At least, 2102 people and more likely the number is in the high thousands killed by law enforcement in the United States over the course of the past 4 years. Your point being?

 

 

This is not a war. You can't equalize the casualties on both sides. Sure you may have 2100 people killed by LEOs in the same time period but I will guarantee you 95% of those represent people who had it coming. That other 5% represents cases like Garner's, not the the other way around and if you are insinuating it does, then I have nothing else to say to you.

 

 

I must've missed the memo were fondling a man's testicles and choking an unarmed man to death qualified as pursuing official duty.

 

They do. You are missing the memo because you haven't a f*cking clue about how policing works. Just because a cop steps outside of the bounds of polixy does not mean he is no longer a cop automatically and isn't oursuing official duty.

 

 

Except for one teeny tiny detail, he did pass away as a direct result of the chokehold, It's like saying he shot the guy, but the guy died because he choked on his own blood. He still died as a result of the bullet penetrating his body. The shooter still is the killer. In this case Pantaleo is still very much guilty of Second-degree manslaughter.

 

Are you a lawyer or a judge? If you are then feel free to state as such but I don't believe eitber of us are. Thus we have no choice but to defer to the grand jury and the prosecution, who are educated on the case law relevant and the details and decided he is not.

 

There seems to be a shoot first ask questions later mentality.

 

 

Bullsh*t. You keep comparing other countries to the US and acing as if the issue is all in the training. Cops here train for a very long time from the greatest instructors in the world. In fact it was the British who wanted Bill Bratton to be the Chief of the London Police, so that should tell you something about the respect held for American policing.

 

Crime in the US is different, it's that simple. Two bit criminals in the US carry guns, not knives like they do in Europe. If you want to say that's a gun control kssue go ahead, but don't blame the police. Especially not the NYPD, which has one of the toughest gun laws in the entire US, and yet still sees tons of gun crime.

 

 

I implore you to have a look at all these cases. Are some justified, of course, but a huge chunk of them are at the very least questionable.

 

Sure, some are questionable. But not even remotely close to "a huge chunk". I would say all of them could have been avoided had people just obeyed the police. Hard for you to argue with that.

 

Allow me to jug your memory. First there were no problems then you started condescendingly referring to me as pal which is passive aggressive. So in my rebuttal, I put "pal" in there but in quotation marks, as a not so silent hint that you were being an ass. Either you were/are too oblivious or didn't care, I don't know. It's only after you started questioning my education because I referred to a murderer as "f*cker", I started having a little fun with my rebuttal. Yet unlike you I followed my statements up by saying "... you're talking out of your ass, I'd wager is the second" Which essentially is just calling bullsh*t.

 

 

Again, I don't give a flying f*ck if you personally attack me. But if you think i'm going to let you claim that I am out of line when you're the one running your mouth with ad hominem attacks you're crazy.

 

I'm all for leaving this unnecessary animosity behind, but that's very much a two-way street.

Sounds good

 

I just want to add a quick two points that nobody is really discussing. First of all, for those who keep saying this is a race issue, review the tape. The on site commanding officer who ordered the arrest to be executed was a female BLACK Sergeant. Take that for what it is when you say this is about racist cops.

 

Further, the guy who called the cops was a black store owner. For people saying this was a minor crime, yeah it is, but it's not the cops who are making it a big deal, it's the city of New York, specifically the Council and the Mayor. They want that cigarette revenue and they are not going to want to tolerate people selling loose cigarettes, end of story. It isn't the cops, it's the city and the store owners who are losing on revenue and order the cops to deal with it. All it takes is De Blasio saying to Commissioner Bratton to order his Captains to tell their guys and gals to just not enforce the cigarette laws, but they didn't and this is what you're dealing with.

[Creed Bratton]

Anarchy is impossible to maintain. People will eventually organize.

 

I think benevolent dictatorship would be the best. But people are stupid and mortal. Maybe if we create a benevolent AI we can let it take over.

[make total destroy]

Just FYI, Melchior, in case of anarchy, you're on my hit list. Nothing personal. Collapse of governments would mean misery, suffering, and death for hundreds of millions.

As opposed to the existing, which means misery, suffering, and death for hundreds of millions?

 

Man, how horrible would it be if everyone had a roof of over their head, and food on their plate. Just imagine how miserable a society run directly by it's members would be. Truly a horror.

 

Like, you're aware anarchism is not a rejection of social organization, right?

 

EDIT: I'm not trying to turn this into yet another discussion on anarchism/communism. My b folks.

Edited December 7, 2014 by make total destroy

[Docfaustino]

Why is anarchism a better option for putting roofs over our heads than say, European socialism?

[K^2]

Man, how horrible would it be if everyone had a roof of over their head, and food on their plate. Just imagine how miserable a society run directly by it's members would be. Truly a horror.

 

Like, you're aware anarchism is not a rejection of social organization, right?

It's a rejection of every principle on which social organization rests. Rejection of authority. Direct government works in a small village. Sometimes. In practice, a band of outlaws will establish their own authority in that village within a year. Then you are on the road towards feudalism. These should be fun times.

 

And just to illustrate that point better, shall the governments collapse, you I will sell to the slavers. Maybe I'll score a few rifle rounds that way.

[Mr. House]

Well guys K^2 exposed the fundamental flaws in Anarchism, time to go home. Must have been all that STEM logic at work whilst I was being a replaceable waste of life flipping burgers.

[make total destroy]

Why is anarchism a better option for putting roofs over our heads than say, European socialism?

 

First of all, European socialism--I'm assuming you're referring to Scandinavia--is not socialist in any sense of the word. One only has to look and see that Scandinavia has not escaped the pitfalls of class society, private property, wage labor, commodity production, etc. Putting that aside for a moment, these countries are just as incompetent at solving homelessness as the United States. While Sweden has a lower homeless population than say, all of New York City, it's homeless population has doubled since 2005 (as of 2011) and continues to grow despite the efforts--or lack thereof--of it's 'socialist' government.

 

In an anarchist society, private property would be expropriated and put to common use. That includes hotels, mansions, and other facilities that could easily be transformed into housing. Landlords can be converted into food, too.

 

It's a rejection of every principle on which social organization rests. Rejection of authority. Direct government works in a small village. Sometimes. In practice, a band of outlaws will establish their own authority in that village within a year. Then you are on the road towards feudalism. These should be fun times.

 

And just to illustrate that point better, shall the governments collapse, you I will sell to the slavers. Maybe I'll score a few rifle rounds that way.

 

A rejection of illegitimate authority, yes. But in the matter of shoes, I still defer the authority of the shoemaker.

 

You seem to think anarchism is simply a rejection of authority/government, which is a simplistic understanding to say the least. You should rely less on Merriam-Webster, and more on actual anarchist theory.

[Mr. House]

 

Why is anarchism a better option for putting roofs over our heads than say, European socialism?

 

First of all, European socialism--I'm assuming you're referring to Scandinavia--is not socialist in any sense of the word. One only has to look and see that Scandinavia has not escaped the pitfalls of class society, private property, wage labor, commodity production, etc. Putting that aside for a moment, these countries are just as incompetent at solving homelessness as the United States. While Sweden has a lower homeless population than say, all of New York City, it's homeless population has doubled since 2005 (as of 2011) and continues to grow despite the efforts--or lack thereof--of it's 'socialist' government.

Sweden has undergone neoliberal market reforms since about 2005. I'm sure that's a complete coincidence though.