Opinions on Ferguson MO
- Thread starter RedBusarider
- Start date
You think that was the intention?
Who was detained, or did I miss something?
As already stated, where I come from we were raised to respect authority and it works. When I do that, I always seem to receive mutual respect. It's really not hard, try it some time.
I was taught to respect authority but also to question it. That's the American way if you recall that little disagreement we had back in 1776?
I was taught to respect authority but also to question it. That's the American way if you recall that little disagreement we had back in 1776?
That is true, Americans sure do question authority. Something I still struggle with, as the politics between liberal and conservative as well as the media continuously defaming the President is in my humble opinion not in the best interests of the country. But you are absolutely right, that is the American way.
Not to hijack the thread, you still think targeting a minority with a 30 arrest record is discrimination?
Lycan6
Registered
If you stop and question me you are detaining me.
My directions are not the best, I always stop and ask people questions. You think I am detaining them?
On a serious note, the Police have the right to stop you and justify your presence in your location. Also to identify yourself. It is the law of the land, just suck it up. And yes it is called detention.
I still don't think what we saw in the video was detention, as none of the above happened.
I am going to modify my previous statement. The officer does NOT have his arm under the deceased as I previously stated. However, here is some commentary from another location:
I think technically that's a restraint and not considered a choke hold because it isn't locked in deep enough to choke. I believe for it to be technically a choke hold the officer elbow would have to be locked in there under Garners chin putting pressure on the arteries. I also believe the Officers hand to hand hold -vs- a hold further up his right arm like at his elbow would be considered a choke hold. I agree it looks bad, but the only way to get choked in that position is to do it to yourself, as in example the, more Garner tried to pull away the more pressure he exerted against the forearm under his chin. From what I have heard no damage was found to Garners throat during the autopsy.
And:
Going off appearance:
Pressure only on one side of the neck
Forearm at an angle across the front of the neck
Doesn't appear to be any rearward pressure (head position of Garner, no arching of back of the officer)
So, from that, the GJ may have decided that there was no intent of hurting the guy, just putting him in custody - and his unwillingness to comply makes him partially complicit in what happened afterwards - no indictment.
What people fail to understand, is when you force a takedown, whatever happens during that cannot be predicted. One side or the other is going to win, and after the dust settles someone is going to be unhappy with the results...
I think technically that's a restraint and not considered a choke hold because it isn't locked in deep enough to choke. I believe for it to be technically a choke hold the officer elbow would have to be locked in there under Garners chin putting pressure on the arteries. I also believe the Officers hand to hand hold -vs- a hold further up his right arm like at his elbow would be considered a choke hold. I agree it looks bad, but the only way to get choked in that position is to do it to yourself, as in example the, more Garner tried to pull away the more pressure he exerted against the forearm under his chin. From what I have heard no damage was found to Garners throat during the autopsy.
And:
Going off appearance:
Pressure only on one side of the neck
Forearm at an angle across the front of the neck
Doesn't appear to be any rearward pressure (head position of Garner, no arching of back of the officer)
So, from that, the GJ may have decided that there was no intent of hurting the guy, just putting him in custody - and his unwillingness to comply makes him partially complicit in what happened afterwards - no indictment.
What people fail to understand, is when you force a takedown, whatever happens during that cannot be predicted. One side or the other is going to win, and after the dust settles someone is going to be unhappy with the results...
RedBusarider
Registered
Wrong. If you are not breaking any laws you are not required to tell your name, address, or anything else.
Where is it written that you must identify yourself when you are doing nothing wrong just because a cop asks you to?
Maybe in AZ or someplace that has a high amount of illegals MAYBE there is a law but not everywhere is it a LAW that you have to identify yourself
when you are just walking down the street.
Remember I'm talking about the LAW not if it is smart to refuse to identify yourself.
If I'm running down the road with running shorts on and no ID is that a crime?
Last time I checked this was AMERICA we have the right to refuse to answer if we choose to. That is not a crime either.
All the above will change if you are breaking the law. Or if you were driving and got stopped then they could demand to see a drivers license
because you were driving.
I think you mis-understood me or more likely I mis stated my position. I think cops who go after minorities often have an expectation of bad things that they don't always have with other suspects. For this reason they use deadly force quicker than with other suspects. Net result is more blacks killed. Obviously its much more complicated than that but that's the basic assumption.
I believe the law says that a Police Officer needs no justification to stop someone and ask a question. Yes, you may refuse to answer the question. If there is reasonable suspicion, he may detain you.
See paragraph 8, link attached.
Police detention legal definition of Police detention
So if you were the cop in that video, what would you do? Tell the store owner to take a hike, he is on own with the person he reported as suspicious?
RedBusarider
Registered
Where in my post did you see me say that police don't have a right to stop you?
My point was you didn't have to answer and identify yourself, if you were doing nothing wrong.
And that link confirmed that - didn't it?
In post #248 you said "Also to identify yourself. It is the law of the land" that is the point I didn't agree with.
I don't want to argue this to death - In most cases I believe that I would give them my info if requested and there seemed to
be a reason other then they were just curious.
And, I correct myself, again. From a Police Officer:
I'm getting a little annoyed with threads like this so let me inject a little knowledge here........
Garner, who has been arrested 31 times, was standing outside of a store where the owner called to complain because he is loosing busness to a guy who isn't paying taxes to sell the same product the store owner is as the law dictates.
This is called a Quality of Life Crime. NYPD has a Quality of Life Unit. Quality of life crimes include, loud music in apartment buildings, selling taxable items illegally (tobacco prouducts, alcohol ect.). The unit generally works in high crime areas so they are usually plain clothes and in pairs.
Garner is approached by these officers and they identify themselves as police. Garner is told that he is under arrest and they go to place him in handcuffs......
HE REFUSES....... (A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CRIME AND CIRCUMMSTANCE HAS JUST OCCURRED PEOPLE!)
Look at some of the pictures and take notice of the size difference between Garner and the other officers. Also take notice of the size of Garner's wrists compared to the cuffs in the officer's hand! If you don't think for one second Garner wasn't thinking "F-you I'm bigger than you) you are nuts!
The officer in the intial take down had Garner in a Nelson. His arm was under Garner's arm and around his head. At no point was any of his arm putting pressure on or crushing Garner's veins or arteries in his neck. In the second photo, the officer's arm is no longer under Garner's arm but there is still no crushing of vital areas. It's muscle on muscle.
Garner says "I can't breathe" 9 times! If he would have turned around, got cuffed and was most likely cited and released, he would be alive today..... maybe. If you can speak, YOU CAN BREATHE!
There was no evidence of petecial hemmoraging at Garner's autopsy and that right there proves the "choke hold" had nothing to do with his death.
We are tasked to do a thankless job. We are sworn at , spit on, sued, assaulted and murdered. I will be damned if Obama, Holder, Bloomburg, my boss, whomever, is going to make me hesitate while doing my job! I am a single parent with two kids that I MUST come home to everyday! Let's show a little compassion for police officers who are paid very little (most of us) that have to make split second decisions on life or death and are trained to the level of an approved budget! Yes there are some bad apples in the bunch but let's focus on that instead of trying to dig up BS because it's the popular thing to do right now.
I'm getting a little annoyed with threads like this so let me inject a little knowledge here........
Garner, who has been arrested 31 times, was standing outside of a store where the owner called to complain because he is loosing busness to a guy who isn't paying taxes to sell the same product the store owner is as the law dictates.
This is called a Quality of Life Crime. NYPD has a Quality of Life Unit. Quality of life crimes include, loud music in apartment buildings, selling taxable items illegally (tobacco prouducts, alcohol ect.). The unit generally works in high crime areas so they are usually plain clothes and in pairs.
Garner is approached by these officers and they identify themselves as police. Garner is told that he is under arrest and they go to place him in handcuffs......
HE REFUSES....... (A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CRIME AND CIRCUMMSTANCE HAS JUST OCCURRED PEOPLE!)
Look at some of the pictures and take notice of the size difference between Garner and the other officers. Also take notice of the size of Garner's wrists compared to the cuffs in the officer's hand! If you don't think for one second Garner wasn't thinking "F-you I'm bigger than you) you are nuts!
The officer in the intial take down had Garner in a Nelson. His arm was under Garner's arm and around his head. At no point was any of his arm putting pressure on or crushing Garner's veins or arteries in his neck. In the second photo, the officer's arm is no longer under Garner's arm but there is still no crushing of vital areas. It's muscle on muscle.
Garner says "I can't breathe" 9 times! If he would have turned around, got cuffed and was most likely cited and released, he would be alive today..... maybe. If you can speak, YOU CAN BREATHE!
There was no evidence of petecial hemmoraging at Garner's autopsy and that right there proves the "choke hold" had nothing to do with his death.
We are tasked to do a thankless job. We are sworn at , spit on, sued, assaulted and murdered. I will be damned if Obama, Holder, Bloomburg, my boss, whomever, is going to make me hesitate while doing my job! I am a single parent with two kids that I MUST come home to everyday! Let's show a little compassion for police officers who are paid very little (most of us) that have to make split second decisions on life or death and are trained to the level of an approved budget! Yes there are some bad apples in the bunch but let's focus on that instead of trying to dig up BS because it's the popular thing to do right now.
Lycan6
Registered
Since apparently this is difficult to grasp. These are common meanings for detain;
keep (someone) in official custody, typically for questioning about a crime or in politically sensitive situations. Or to keep someone from moving or hold them back is detaining them. So to answer your question yes you are detaining someone when you stop them to ask for directions.
TallTom
Registered
OK I agree the guy could have had a less condescending attitude to the cop. And I agree that he had an agenda when he made this video. But his point was, walking down the street with your hands in your pocket is illegal in what way? Suspicious in what way? Wrong in what way? Maybe the same guy in the video is the one that set up the 911 calls. We don't know that. Nor did the cop. If it would not have been video'd, I wonder if the attitudes on both sides of this would have been different?
The kid could have taken his hands out of his pocket to diffuse the situation more quickly, but by not doing that does not imply he is doing something wrong. As far as I know there are no laws for walking with your hands in your pockets. If I didn't know there was 911 calls and I fit the description of those calls, I'd be a little upset by a cop hassling me. The cop NICELY explained himself. That was when the kid should have let it go and this wouldn't have been newsworthy. That is all it takes for me. Be nice to me and I will help you do your job as quickly as we can so we can both move along.
And if all the cops had the attitude that the one in this video had, there would be less confrontation that we remember in a negative way. In my experience it's the cop that acts condescending towards the public. As has been pointed out over and over, a lot has to do with attitude, by either side. If a cop is a *ick with me, I am going to have let them be one for that encounter. No that isn't right. And that is why the public has a general distrust for them.
However I will follow the *icks orders and hope he limits himself to just running his mouth, and I can go about my day afterwords like I was before then. But if its reversed and I am a *ick to the cop, my day will be made into a miserable one. And that isn't right either. I don't have the ability to back up my *ickness with Pepper Spray or Tazer or etc.
I can dislike punks that break the laws and cops that are *icks pretty equally. But I have to tolerate one more than the other as I can't steer clear of cop being a *ick.
I haven't had to deal with any cops at all here where I live. So I have no idea their demeanor here. Where I lived in Fla. they went out of their way to hassle us and it got old trying to be patient with them. I ride the same bike. Live in the same type neighborhood. Have the same demeanor as I always did. Here they are actually nice to us. Because of this I want to help them do their job.
Heck my car battery went dead out of the blue a few weeks back. A cop saw me with the hood up in the parking lot, stopped and offered to jump me off. He never once asked for my license or registration or treated me with anything other than a good attitude. In Fla., if they had stopped, I would have gotten hassled somehow.
Actually, I thought the officer handled this appropriately. He responded to a 911 call, explained to the guy with the video the purpose of his questioning, and once he determined it was ok, moved on. Juxtapose this to the situations where the open carry advocates create 911 calls (justifiable IMHO) which brings officer's attention, and how they deal with those in the same way. Someone calls 911 and reports they see something that makes them think a crime is about to be committed, they gotta showup and check it out. It's all how BOTH PARTIES, both the officer AND THE CITIZEN, need to DEFUSE THE SITUATION with CALM HEADS.
You missed the point - they officers told him he was under arrest for a legitimate crime. IF HE HAD SUBMITTED at that moment (and yes they have to cuff him as a matter of procedure before putting him in the squadcar) he would BE ALIVE TODAY.
Lycan6
Registered
No I didn't miss the point. Your post from an officer said it was a quality of life crime just like spraying graffiti and playing loud music. If there in the same category then he should have been issued a citation right? Then why the need to choke him and cuff him? It even said he would have been cuffed and cited and released. My question is why did he need to be cuffed to receive the citation. Give it to him and keep moving.
Similar threads
