its called flourless chocolate cake with raspberries were all doing it now
Printable View
its called flourless chocolate cake with raspberries were all doing it now
also new girl is the greatest show on tv
ohhh whatttt die hard in hd for 4.99 JUST ORDERED IT YALL
i can literally afford cable yall
FISTS WITH YOUR TOES oh this is gonna be amazing
The injustice is very simple. The police officer in question
ended up killing a person for selling a cigarette.
...which occurred, unfortunately AND unintentionally, as a result of that person not obeying the law.
Had that cigarette seller been your father you would most
likely wonder why such force was used for a meaningless
misdemeanor.
? It would depend on how much I knew upon learning he died. Had someone called me at home to tell me the news, after the fact, with no knowledge of what transpired, I would be devastated.
Had I known that my father, who in this case, broke the law multiple times in the past, several times for this exact thing they were about to arrest him for, and disobeyed the directives of the police, I would be upset, but understand that my father made a tragic mistake, and be pissed at him.
This poor schmuck wasn't hurting anyone
and he didn't approach the cops, it was the other way around.
Define "hurt". (doesnt matter that much though...I would argue he was "hurting" the stores in the area who pay rent and taxes to be able to sell cigarettes LEGALLY). He was breaking the law. That is why the cops approached HIM.
Excessive force was used for something as harmless as jaywalking.
Define "excessive". The tactic they used WAS NOT ILLEGAL. They were trying to subdue, not kill.
You're right, a "law" was broken, but in no way should a man's
life be snuffed out because of it.
Are you suggesting that they suspected he was selling cigarettes, so they walked up to him and KILLED HIM?!!! Really?!! Just felt like walking up to him in broad daylight, with all kids of other people watching this on the street, and just kill him intentionally...
You didn't read my post regarding the letter of the law I guess
otherwise you would not continue with your ridiculous stance
in favour of the police action taken.
My "stance" is that the police did what they are paid and expected to do, and that is prevent crimes. What makes this "ridiculous"?
I said earlier that I would not post further in this
thread but rules are made to be broken. Ya.
No, rules are meant to be followed. That is why people make them. You made a conscious decision to break your own rule.
Honestly, would you consider selling someone a cigarette a crime? Whether it's on the books or notQuote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
someone selling a legal product that goes for a buck at the most is not harming anyone. No one
is forced to purchase this product, so no harm no foul. To think this transaction is even in
the mindset of the police force is a joke.
According to your "stance" this particular police officer should be receiving a
commendation and possible promotion for erasing this horrible act.
Your either a bigot, an idiot, or were raised by NeoNazis.
You are basing your hysterical rants on an invalid assumption, that we in the non-koolaiddrinking camp are asserting that the cops set out to kill the fella, I.e. committed murder, when in fact the assertions are more simply and irrefutably that they killed him, and that there is case to answer, and that if US justice was sensible, then someone would face trial for manslaughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Les, you also need to understand that in many cases where a police officer is about to question/potentially arrest someone, for doing something that they were already guilty of in the past (the person realizes he is about to do serious time...strike 3 type of stuff even), that person will have more of a reason in their mind that they need to flee or attack the cop because they know they are screwed.
If you are talking about my "stance" on why they jumped on him and it took several of them, its because they are trying to minimize the damage that THEY are going to take from someone so large and belligerent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WiganerYou are basing your hysterical rants on an invalid assumption, that we in the non-koolaiddrinking camp are asserting that the cops set out to kill the fella, I.e. committed murder, when in fact the assertions are more simply and irrefutably that they killed him, and that there is case to answer, and that if US justice was sensible, then someone would face trial for manslaughter.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
yeah.....thats not going to happen. The guy died, during the time the police were doing their job, and they didnt do anything intentionally to cause it. No manslaughter. Maybe things are different if the guy wasnt 400 lbs, asthmatic, had other health issues, which contributed to it, but there should not be a manslaughter charge attached to this at all. The Police officers did what they are trained to do. He didnt listen. He did not go quietly, and unfortunately went quietly into the night.
Shoulda practiced avoidance.
Here's an example of a cop standing trial for maslaughter in the Uk, and then getting acquitted
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death..._Simon_Harwood
Which in my view was the right outcome, it was also right that he was put on trial
The pity is that the US doesn't seem to deal with nuances, you either seem to be in the cops are above the law, or fuck da police camps, when its clear that reality is more complicated. And in case you think I'm also guilty of that, I consider the decision not to charge the Missouri cop was correct.
If it is a crime to resell a cigarette then this more evidence that America is a police stateQuote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
and that to "serve and protect" means nothing to these bully's with guns.
Serious time for selling a cigarette to someone who agrees to the transaction? Please.
Bill Cosby, or someone with a heart, should pay for a hotshot attorney
in what should be an open and shut case of police brutality
and at least provide compensation for this man's family.
Well I must say I'm surprised that you feel the police were justified in that case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiganer
I gave it the once over but it sounds like another case of two dumb schmucks.
One the trained police officer and the other a guy probably on the low end of
the I.Q. spectrum.
But I guess being a cop means the law does not apply to you.
I don't think they were justified, but the manslaughter acquittal was fair, just about. The guy was dismissed and the police paid compensation to the family, so there was some redress. In the US they guy would probably have got a promotion and a medal.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesWell I must say I'm surprised that you feel the police were justified in that case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiganer
I gave it the once over but it sounds like another case of two dumb schmucks.
One the trained police officer and the other a guy probably on the low end of
the I.Q. spectrum.
But I guess being a cop means the law does not apply to you.
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by WiganerI don't think they were justified, but the manslaughter acquittal was fair, just about. The guy was dismissed and the police paid compensation to the family, so there was some redress. In the US they guy would probably have got a promotion and a medal.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
a true bigot calls them "colored people"Quote:
Originally Posted by splitthis
Yeah generally if you want to avoid choking people to death the best known method is still NOT choking people to death. For a layman it might appear that it would as good or even better for the victim to not resist arrest, have a rap sheet, be obese, have asthma and/or be black, but there really is quite a lot of empirical data to support the theory that the a fore mentioned methods alone or collectively are still inferior to simply not choking the victim to death.
Now at times there are reasonable circumstances to accidentally choke someone to death, but they always require a threat to human life. In Eric Gardner's case there might have been a threat to human life in the earlier fight that Gardner broke and there was definitely a threat to human life when the police chose to use excessive force against an unarmed non-violent suspect, but nothing Gardner did posed a threat to human life.
Also if you think that what the police and the EMT did in this case was is even close to what they were trained to do and/or standard protocol in any city in the US then that's merely because you're a fucking retard. If this was standard you would be racking up bodies in the thousands every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
It doesnt matter what I think...the REALITY is that is a LAW. If you think it should be changed, you should do something about it. You cant just say, "I dont think its good so I wont follow it". Drug dealers would love to do that. Murderers would certainly be open to a killing spree next Thursday, if they knew there were no repercussions. But again, LAW.
No one is "forced" to purchase? Thats not the point.
Mindset of the police? Its not up to them to enforce certain laws (do they do this, obviously, but they arent supposed to, and they are supposed to uphold LAW). Will they turn a blind eye at times, yes. They arent supposed to. If a law is being broken, they are supposed to prevent that.
According to my stance?....my stance doesnt say they deserve to be rewarded for doing a job. Its their job. He didnt go above and beyond the call of duty. Why would you state that I think he deserves to be rewarded? Where are you and the others coming up with this stuff?!!
One could, however, question the "choke hold" method, as its not taught or encouraged....BUT ITS NOT ILLEGAL for them to do it. Pass a law preventing that if you dont like it. They are not "choke holding" someone to KILL...they are doing it to get a person who isnt obeying their instructions to get on the ground. If they tell you to put your hands behind your back, and you do, they ARENT going to come up to you and choke you. If they do, they should lose their badge and likely do time. "excessive force" is a very tough thing to make a call on. The jury saw the video, heard testimony, and had a lot of facts, and I dont believe that they ruled it was enough to punish the officer. Keep in mind, this guy had been arrested multiple times, and I dont know if they heard testimony about any of the previous arrests. He got caught selling cigs multiple times, got caught selling weed and some other charge.
bigot or nazi? Im prejudiced against dumb people and liver. I hate liver.
Not trying to dig too hard on you guys, but some of your logic on this matter is WAY OFF. I think you are putting too much emotion/passion/alcohol induced thoughts into this.
Its like you are children and you are arguing with your parents.
"Marty...its time to come in from playing with your friend"
NO MOM...I DONT WANNA GO HOME...YOUR RULE IS DUMB!
"But Marty, its my rule, and I make the rules in this house"
NO...IM GOING TO RUN OFF TO BRAZIL AND BANG BEACH BUNNIES
"Suit yourself, but my rule is the rule. If you dont like it, move to Brazil and I will send you an allowance, but you cant stay here anymore"
FINE....I WILL!!
...and scene....
This is where your logic falls apart because this is EXACTLY what the cops are doing when they disregard their own department policy & use that choke hold over & over & over & over again until someone dies. This is exactly why it's banned because eventually deaths occur.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
I know that if I knowingly let somebody do something against my company policy & somebody died as a result I would, at the very least, lose my job & there's the definite possibility that I could be found liable in court.
I'm sure these cops must know their own department policy, no?
and just so you know, me personally, I would not have applied the chokehold so tight. It didnt seem after a few seconds that the guy was really fighting that much at that point.
its just not for me to decide
Too much PhishQuote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
THIS is what the police now get to deal with....a bunch of obnoxious assholes that dont want to comply. Dont even get me started on what this officer COULD have been within his rights to do. He didnt do it, and look at the shit he got to deal with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYNdrsxrgNo
LOL what an asshole.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Star
Yep
Holy fucking shit, these are the dumb fucks cops have to put up with on a daily basis and now its going to get so much worse. Nobody is going to want to be a cop, which is going to lead to worse cops, which will lead to more incidents. Sick metagame the criminals are playing.
Jesus Christ, you dumb shits still can't get over the choke hold. Not one of you has answered the question of, what should an officer do to retain a 400+ pound man that is resisting arrest? One of you please give a better solution.
Hi varys, you take the time to give me a negative rep but still offer no solution. I wonder why......Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
Id also like to know how to restrain a 400lb man who doesn't want to be restrained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by big dick
http://juitnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/kfc.jpeg
Few ways to handle the situation from some random thread in reddit...
"I spent 14 years training officers, and if I saw the same video, but with no death or injury, I would have asked "why didn't you issue a citation and move on to something worthwhile?"
This amount of resources devoted to a cigarrette tax matter is not effective.
For times such as when our department was directed to "crack down" on some nonsense crime such as this we would encourage the officers to make a loud presence, issue brochures, lectures... anything but clog our courts with this garbage. When we have insufficient resources to prosecute meth dealers, violent stalkers, child abusers, I have less than zero concern over cigarrette tax.
So ok, let's just say he must be arrested, this man has been arrested many times before, he knows the drill. His body language was not that of a guy who was going to brawl with the officers, he just wasn't quite ready to be cuffed, and since he was not a current violent threat, they should have talked to him until he could have been brought in peacably. This just as easily could have resulted in an officer tweaking his back and the department having to suck up $100,000 in worker's comp liability."
"I never resorted to violence on a non-violent offender unless there was no other option.
For example, if someone was caught shoplifting but didn't want to empty their pockets, I didn't throw them on the ground and cuff them and then go tearing through their belongings. I mean, I had plenty of time. I can patiently sit there and explain a few times that "this is going to happen" and "you're better off doing this the easy way."
If it became obvious that physical force was the only option, I would call a couple of extra officers to my location. We would discuss the best plan to restrain the person right in front of the suspect, so they could hear exactly what we were going to do to them if they didn't cooperate. Often, that was enough for the person to say "fine, search me."
I handled dozens and dozens of incidents very similar to that and the one in NY and not one time did I have to choke a motherfucker."
Basically if you can't talk 99 out of 100 suspects like Gardner (unarmed, sober and non-threatening) to comply just get another fucking job before you get someone killed.
Oh right, you guys need me to explain why its probably incorrect to choke out a man for selling lolcigarettes illegally. Oooh he has a history of selling them? Wow. And he was upset and didnt immediately comply with the cops orders? Yeah choke him until he dies, for sure.
Arguing with you puppets will just extend this awful thread another few pages. Gimmick and lol wow have already done the lords work.
So now they choked him till he died? Are you fucking retarded? Serious question.Quote:
Originally Posted by varys
In college I bounced for 3 years and had to put dozens of people in headlocks/choke holds to get control of them. I guess I should have been arrested for attempted murder several times due to the .000000001% chance that after I threw one of these guys out of the bar they might have a heart attack later because they were so out of shape.
I'm surprised you wouldn't know this as a bouncer but yes assuming the other guy didn;t get violent with you first you have no right. Most clubs recognize potential for lawsuits and purposely hire bouncers who are experts at de-escalation. Grabbing a patron and forcing them to leave is generally illegal (bouncers have no authority to do so).Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefishSo now they choked him till he died? Are you fucking retarded? Serious question.Quote:
Originally Posted by varys
In college I bounced for 3 years and had to put dozens of people in headlocks/choke holds to get control of them. I guess I should have been arrested for attempted murder several times due to the .000000001% chance that after I threw one of these guys out of the bar they might have a heart attack later because they were so out of shape.
I'm not sure where I stand on the case here. Police definitely escalated but at same time they were within legal right to do so.
Cop escalated by doing what his department specifically forbade all cops to do, which is put on a choke hold. He was not right to do that, according to the rules that govern his own actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetCheckBet
this is the main part of the trial where I would love to see the transcript. They were instructed not to choke, but its not illegal to choke, so how did the attorneys for the police explain why they had to do that? Due to the size of the guy? Did they argue that it wasnt tight because he could yell out I cant breathe 10 times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe DiddlyCop escalated by doing what his department specifically forbade all cops to do, which is put on a choke hold. He was not right to do that, according to the rules that govern his own actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetCheckBet
If there is a transcript, someone please post it. I didnt think there was.
That's where it gets complicated. My understanding is that police have a fair bit of latitude when it comes to taking measures to restrain an individual so it comes down to the likelihood that this would cause serious harm to an individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Starthis is the main part of the trial where I would love to see the transcript. They were instructed not to choke, but its not illegal to choke, so how did the attorneys for the police explain why they had to do that? Due to the size of the guy? Did they argue that it wasnt tight because he could yell out I cant breathe 10 times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
If there is a transcript, someone please post it. I didnt think there was.
Best post in this thread and maybe on the site for a while. No more forQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
to say except I was surprised at DRK Str's comment.
One, there was no trial, and 2, grand juries almost NEVER make transcripts of testimony available for public consumption. Shit's secret, and supposed to stay that way, for the most part. Also, attorneys for possible defendants are not allowed to speak at grand jury hearings, either. No attorneys are, save the prosecutor, so pretty much everything you wrote can exist only in your head, not in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRK Starthis is the main part of the trial where I would love to see the transcript. They were instructed not to choke, but its not illegal to choke, so how did the attorneys for the police explain why they had to do that? Due to the size of the guy? Did they argue that it wasnt tight because he could yell out I cant breathe 10 times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
If there is a transcript, someone please post it. I didnt think there was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
He could've tickled him. Fat people are usually really ticklish. He would've dropped immed imo
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetCheckBetI'm surprised you wouldn't know this as a bouncer but yes assuming the other guy didn;t get violent with you first you have no right. Most clubs recognize potential for lawsuits and purposely hire bouncers who are experts at de-escalation. Grabbing a patron and forcing them to leave is generally illegal (bouncers have no authority to do so).Quote:
Originally Posted by nightmarefish
I'm not sure where I stand on the case here. Police definitely escalated but at same time they were within legal right to do so.
What clubs have you been to man? a majority of the clubs are filled with overzealous bouncers who can't wait to get into an all out physical war. They're normally huge because they're meatheads, and they're usually meatheads because they're huge
Although I will clarify I am a bit older, 33, and haven't been to the clubs in probably 5-7 years. The age of the cell phone video has become huge. It just wasn't at the time I'm referring to. So I do know what you're saying. I also feel like I still read an awful lot of stories about bouncers throwing punches etc though