Early? It was 11:00. "Shirking work" would've been the fair label. Pissy? I recognize that intent gets lost via text, but there was no pissiness present. I was asking an honest question. I appreciate the lashing out. God forbid I ask for you to give me more than just saying what shouldn't be, or to ask for substance behind that. Ravens_r_#1 has already addressed your position, for the most part, and with the limited time I have, I'm not sure what else I'm going to be able to add. I'd just ask you to not be so shortsighted about this, Cat. Of course, I've continued to ask that of everyone upset with Kaepernick, and it's never done any good, so I don't know why I bothered. I think it was just to remind everyone, regardless of your stance on the issue, that this doesn't reflect well on us, as Americans. I mean, this just isn't the way we should be behaving. If only everyone were as upset about police brutality (or anything else, really) as they are about not standing for the national anthem.
Do you have any clue how much easier it is to win a civil case, than it is a federal case? Different set of rules in the courts...You don't have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you only have to convince 6 out of 8 in a group of people to find there is reason for compensation in a civil case. Federal case, ALL 12 jurors have to agree on the outcome beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, I know civil cases are much easier. But if all these cases need payouts and next to none of them find anyone guilty of anything, there has to be a problem somewhere, right? Eric Garner's case was one of the ones I mentioned above. The medical examiner ruled it a homicide by chokehold. The police department confirmed the chokehold put on Garner was an illegal maneuver that was banned. Under these two things, who was punished for Garner's death? A cop got desk duty and two EMTs were suspended for not providing CPR quickly enough. Nobody was punished for the actual chokehold.......outside of temporary desk duty. Daniel Pantaleo faced no real punishment for killing a man by way of banned chokehold. So maybe I asked the wrong question before. Does it make sense, that a death can be ruled a homicide by way of chokehold, that the police department can admit the banned chokehold shouldn't have been used, and that we can all see on video that Garner didn't threaten Pantaleo in any way, and yet nobody gets a real punishment......just temporary desk duty?
I don't disagree with the theory, but I personally have looked at the information available in most of the cases and I haven't found many cases that I came away thinking "If I were on the jury he would definitely have been convicted". That doesn't make me a racist, or someone who doesn't want justice for someone that is wronged. The problem is, we get less than 5% of the information in the press and cannot even make an educated opinion on what we would do in reality in any of these cases. In nearly every case, there are extenuating circumstances that can lead to a "what if" scenario. Once you go down that path it is extremely difficult to end up with a beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. First off, the medical examiner didn't use the word homicide in any of my past readings, I would like to see that if it is true. What I have read they stated the choke hold "may have" contributed to his death, but didn't rule it as the cause. As for the "policy" choke holds were banned, but are not prohibited. So criminally, he did nothing wrong. I know it is a technicality, but the law is the law. It cannot be used against him in criminal proceedings. At the end of the day, Eric Garner resisted arrest. If he hadn't he most likely is still breathing today and we are not talking about him. He was a convicted criminal being arrested for a a criminal offense. Shut up, put your hands behind your back and live to hopefully become a better citizen the next day. Resist and put an officer in harms way, EXPECT to be taken into custody by force. Again, show me where it was ruled a homicide by choke hold and my opinion may be swayed. Pantaleo isn't only responsible for his own safety, but that of all citizens including his fellow officers. The "banned" vs. "prohibited by law" is the main definition that needs to be studied and changed in the State of New York. Until it is prohibited, they cannot use it against them in a criminal case.
Most people who resist arrest are high on drugs or alcohol, if not they are not ok upstairs. People who are sober and mentally stable don't resist the police. This is where the biggest problem is in most of the cases, because the public doesn't get privilege to this information too often.
but that's what Americans are saying about Kap for kneeling during the NATIONAL ANTHEM! They see what he is doing as a disrespect to the flag and what it stands for. That's my thing - go about what you're doing in a different way. Don't dishonor the flag or anthem. Do something else to protect against police brutality. Wear a ribbon. Put a sticker decal on your helmet. Put a note on your spikes. Anything but disrespect the flag and anthem! That's why people are so pissed at him!
See, on this disagree with you, but that's a matter of opinion and personal views I guess. Using the two cases mentioned again, I can't watch a video of a cop choking a guy to death who did not attack the cop, find out even the department has confirmed that the chokehold was banned, hear from the medical examiner that the chokehold was the direct cause of death, and then need more evidence. In the Rice case, I can't watch a video of a cop shoot a 12 year old by hopping out of the cop car before his partner came to a complete stop, and then shooting the kid dead. Making no attempt to preserve life even after. Many people fall back on the "police want to make it home also" concept, but I will always hold them to a higher level because: 1. They are trained, or should be, to de-escalate situations and most of these killings don't show that attempt 2. The victim should be given the same opportunity to get home as opposed to this "him or me" logic 3. They chose to be cops knowing the danger. People that volunteer for the military get deployed to hostile countries and still have to follow rules of engagement. Police shoot first, laugh second, get desk duty third. http://time.com/3618279/eric-garner-chokehold-crime-staten-island-daniel-pantaleo/ Or if that's not sufficient you can use any of the articles under this easy google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=med...ome..69i57.20864j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 In terms of the "he shouldn't have resisted" narrative. I'm sorry, and no disrespect to you, but that's one of the most fucked up narratives in this country and it's why police yell "stop resisting" even if someone isn't resisting. Resisting arrest is not punishable by death. I repeat, RESISTING ARREST IS NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH! The fact that many justify unarmed people being killed because they resist an arrest they don't agree with is sad as hell.
So Pantaleo isn't also responsible for Garner's life? And the fact that you have to resort so the definition of banned vs prohibited makes me shake my head. Do you really need that level of technicality to determine whether a cop, with about 5 other officers with him, should have choked an unarmed man to death or not?
and "homicide" also doesn't mean intent to kill... an excerpt from your link: Again, I don't pretend to know what was going through the officer's head...maybe he was intending to take away his ability to breath with the intent to have him never breath again...or, maybe he was using a maneuver a trainer once showed him to subdue a man twice his size, so that he couldn't harm him, himself or any others. I DON'T KNOW, therefore, it is extremely difficult to say with any conviction I would sentence him to prison, specifically because he was resisting arrest at the time of the incident.
Yes, he absolutely is responsible for Garner's life and it may easily have been in his assessment the safest way to subdue a man twice his size so that he doesn't warrant an even more dangerous means to get him to cooperate.
I have a question for you now.... What does an officer do in this situation... Officer: You are being placed under arrest for the crime of.... Perpetrator: No, I don't believe I did anything wrong Officer: We have witnesses that say you did...stated crime Perpetrator: No, I don't need to be arrested, I don't believe I did anything wrong Officer: We will let the court decide if you did anything wrong, for now, you need to put your hands behind your back and comply Perpetrator: No, I'm not going to do that Officer: Then you are forcing me to make you comply Perpetrator: I'm not forcing you to do anything, I'm just telling you I'm not going to let you arrest me Officer: Then must take action to make the arrest Perpetrator: Then resists using force What happens next in your assessment? a) The officers leave him to go about his day because he doesn't want to be arrested b) The officers do what is needed to get him subdued If your answer is "b", then please explain how they are to do that with a man his size, WITHOUT using force in any way. See this is where we go down different paths of thinking...You believe the officers put him in harms way, I believe he put himself there.
For the record, I never stated any intent on anyone's part. I stated it was ruled a homicide by to medical examiner, which it was, and that it was stated by the M.E. that the choke hold was the direct cause of death, which is also the case. I have no clue why you're trying to analyze intent. There's a kid facing 20 years right now for shooting two officers who he thought were trying to break into his home. Someone had been trying to break into their home previously and he was trying to defend his family. Both cops lived but nobody cares about his intent. But for a trained officer, who is accompanied by 5 other officers against 1 unarmed person, we have to analyze intent? This is one serious reach to defend a cop.
So they're angry at him - does that mean he has to stop doing something he believes in (even if YOU don't agree with him)? And does that mean he shouldn't be allowed gainful employment in the league (if he is, in fact, being blackballed)?
My answer is C. Please believe you won't get me to play along with this game. - You're implying that the cop's only option was to perform a banned maneuver, leading to a man's death, or let the man walk free. - You're conveniently, very conveniently, leaving out the other 5 officers who already had the man surrounded. - You're ignoring that the officers is professionally trained to subdue someone. So my answer is C. I expect a professionally trained public servant, who's accompanied by 5 other professionally trained public servants, to be able to subdue one unarmed individual without said individual losing his life. If that doesn't suffice, I'll choose option D. Said officer performs the exact same option, but upon getting the unarmed individual to the ground, with 5 other professionally trained officers assisting him, he stops applying pressure to the choke hold around the man's neck. Maybe one of the.......17 times the main yells "I can't breathe" is a good reason to let go once said officer and 5 others have him on the ground.
Because your argument is that cops don't get punished when they: For the record, I don't know the underlying facts of the case you are talking about above, but if the cops were coming into his house without identifying themselves..who's to say he will get the 20 years? It could easily become a self defense case. What are the facts of that case? I may agree with you that he shouldn't go to jail...
It's funny you mention Cincy... Bob Costas takes a shot at the Bungles at the 4.30 mark. Roll tape... If this is what is happening, it is more like "wink and nod" black-balling, versus written policy, etc. But I've also read that Kaep is asking for too much money. Here... https://www.inquisitr.com/4096244/c...o-high-disgraced-qb-wants-9-million-per-year/ How about a convenient dose of both?
The police are fallible. The reason: Humans. It is 100% impossible to be 100% impartial 100% of the time. This contradicts with the role of a police officer. They are expected to act "lawfully" at all times. Does that happen? Not 100% of the time. The role of the police officer, due to power and access afforded them, comes with a greater responsibility than that of the regular citizen. Unfortunately, some betray the responsibility with their very own perception of the world, perception of self and their role in the events that surround them. Due to the increased responsibility of the police, and the officers SWORN oath to uphold the laws of this country and local municipalities, it makes errors that much more crucial. If you think you can stand up to subversion (even in your own head) and take that responsibility, you are telling the WORLD that you are responsible for that role. If you fail, you should be held accountable. Congratulations!!! You're witnessing a MURDER! The heinous evil man subdued and about to be cuffed was ... selling "loosie" cigarettes. That's ok, Officer Pantaleo is on the scene! Officer Pantaleo (the nice guy on the ground trying to "help" Mr. Garner) has quite a HISTORY of helping citizens of color: http://www.businessinsider.com/nypd-cop-daniel-pantaleo-sued-three-times-2014-12 It's never just black or white and each case needs to be fairly and thoroughly investigated, but there is some history here. We use it all the time when commenting on an NFL player (usually regarding trouble of some sort). It makes absolutely ZERO sense that a cop using a "banned" tactic and is still walking free. We ban assault weapons for a reason. Double standards. I'm sure when the memo comes down from HQ about a banned tactic, the daily briefing covers that. Pantaleo thinks he is above the law... and in a way, he's right. He gets away with his actions time and time again.
Halo brings up a great point. If we're really going to argue intent, then we have to look at history as well. A cop with a history of violating people's rights somehow still gets the benefit of the doubt. We commend people for taking the "dangerous" job of being a police officer, then avoiding holding them to a higher standard than the every day person. Why? Why give them extra respect, but then expect them to act like everyone else regardless of training? It's not like they receive the same level of punishment as everyone else. If I wanted to make a citizen's arrest on a guy selling loose cigarettes and I choked him to death, would I get the benefit of the doubt or would I be sitting in a jail cell for involuntary manslaughter?
He's not just asking for demasiado dinero he quit on his team watched it real time. He stalled out then opted out and left. Nobody wants that. It felt like him taking a knee on the team too. About the knee tho quien le importa una mierda. Who'd he hurt?
