And the fact is jrry, the men you term "unlawfully killed " were according to "the law" found to be killed in a sufficiently lawful way that those who killed them were NOT let off the hook , they were subjected to Grand Jury investigation,which declined charges .So exactly under Who's law are you claiming they were "unlawfully killed" YOUR'S ?
Yep. That's exactly the problem we're discussing. Maybe this argument would hold water if we didn't have two videos showing the world what they did.
They were unlawfully killed under the law of this country and the prosecution chose to let the grand jury take the heat. Because if you couldn't get a charge based on the videos in the Garner and Crawford cases, you're a piss poor prosecutor or you're purposefully trying not to get them charged.
And that is why people are pissed off.
I don't think you know how low the bar is for getting a person CHARGED. We're not talking conviction here. We're talking charges.
I get your idea about holding people accountable for their "bad acts" and FWIW that's exactly what the cops were tasked with doing, in both cases the Brown and Garner case they resisted ,another crime.
With this line of logic, you can justify abuse of force with any arrest. And that's not a world I want to live in.
Garner's "resisting" can hardly be classified as such. The man threw a non-violent temper tantrum. He didn't attack the officers, he didn't try to harm them, etc. All he did was try to pull away when they started grabbing him.
You want to hold people accountable for bad acts? Do it. I don't mean hold some people, I mean hold everyone. Using a chokehold, which was banned by the NYPD, on a non-violent suspect who committed a petty offense which resulted in his death is a bad act.
How you can sit here and continue to justify it is beyond comprehension.
And don't even get me started on John Crawford. What did he do to resist the police? Stood there and talked on his cell phone?
No I won't drop the bigotry "crap" because it is what predisposing IS ,if you assume that the reason the cops acted the way they did is in any way a manifestation of racial bias based on the differing race of the dead guy and the cop or the impression that's how cops treat black people ,that's bigotry,that sort of charge has to be proven on an individual basis and it has not and since it hasn't it's judging an individual because they are a member of a group FOR being a part of that group based on impression not fact.
No, it's not bigotry. What you're doing here is a cowardly way of discussing a controversial topic. It's truly disgusting.
John Crawford was shot and killed because he was holding a WalMart BB Gun in a WalMart...probably because he was trying to purchase the damn thing. And yet the guy was shot and killed by the police on video without them giving him a chance.
Do you honestly think a white male would have been shot like that? Not a chance in hell. And if they shot and killed a white male, do you think they would have gotten off without being charged? Also, not a chance in hell.
You can pretend that I'm some bigot and that a white person would have been treated the same in that situation but we both know that's a lie. And it's wrong. It's inexcusably wrong.
It's no different than saying something like "these black guys need to clean up their act" and FWIW you COULD if you were so disposed use the disproportionate number of black inmates as your "evidence", I don't BTW, I personally see the war on drugs as a sham and regard the prisoners of that war to be an indication of just who that war is being waged against.
It's very different. Police officers are a member of an occupation...not a race.
And I'm not saying the cops need to clean up their act. I'm saying the cops should be held accountable for their actions. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm also saying that the cops need to change the way they treat people. They need to treat people equally. There's no bigotry.
So cut the shit and discuss this like an adult.
I don't think it serves the cause of eliminating that bigotry to make charges like murder or terming their deaths "unlawful" when the lawful procedures have been performed just because you aren't satisfied with the finding and railing on with your judgments.
You better fucking bet I'm not satisfied with the findings. In 1961, 18 men were charged with violating the civil rights of three activists in Mississippi. The state of Mississippi refused to prosecute them for murder which forced the federal government to charge them.
Do you consider what those men did to not be unlawful under the law of Mississippi? Should people have been satisfied with those judgements?
I saw John Crawford ON VIDEO get shot by the police to DEATH for holding WalMart merchandise in the form of a BB gun in a WalMart. He broke no laws. And he was killed by police without being given a real chance. The police officers WERE NOT CHARGED. There is fucking video. We can all see the injustice. There isn't a jurisdiction in this country where that is lawful.
The cops very well might not have been convicted. They would have likely been afforded a mistake of fact defense. But you better fucking bet there was enough there to charge them. The video, itself, is enough evidence.
And Eric Garner? He was killed while non-violently resisting an arrest for a petty offense by a banned chokehold ON VIDEO. There is more than enough there for charges. The fact that chokeholds are banned and that is what caused his death is enough for negligent homicide to be charged.
Perform this experiment if you will have someone with a tape recorder stand five feet from you, have another person choke you to where you CAN'T BREETH, and see if you can utter those words clearly audible to the recorder ,if you can't breathe you can't produce sound by forcing air through the vocal chords BY DEFINITION,can't be done, so even the dead guys testimony is bull crap.
I use the words "dead guys" because using the word victim in itself defines the conclusion, not out of any insensitivity I think it's tragic these guys surrendered their lives over trivial crimes /matters that clearly they participated in the escalation of hostilities to the point they died .
http://time.com/3618279/eric-garner-chokehold-crime-staten-island-daniel-pantaleo/
On Aug. 1, a New York City medical examiner determined that the cause of death in the Garner case was “homicide,” specifically the neck compressions from the Pantaleo’s chokehold and “the compression of [Garner’s] chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police,”
according to spokeswoman, Julie Bolcer.
You want to rethink that argument.
I would also submit that it is my belief their "mens rea" was so contributory to their fate that others will make the same mistakes they did and end up surrendering their lives while subscribing to the belief system you are espousing when all they have to do is obey the law and let themselves be arrested and deal with the situation THE WAY THE LAW PRESCRIBES.
That's the problem. You just don't seem to get it.
I am all for people not resisting arrest. But that's not the issue here. The issue here isn't the resistance; it's the police doing their job and being held accountable when they go above and beyond what they're legally allowed to do.
When people do resist, as American citizens, we still have rights. And the police officers, as American citizens, have to follow the law. When they don't follow the law and uphold those rights, they should be held accountable.
Your unwillingness to agree with that is baffling to me.
The solution isn't for everyone to not resist arrest. That's unrealistic. The solution is for the police to hold their people accountable when they break the law.
It amazes me that the people tasked with upholding our laws are so quick to hurry to the aid of fellow officers that broke it.
And what about John Crawford? Where is his justice? HE DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW. He was shot and killed. He wasn't resisting. He wasn't breaking the law. The man was talking on his cell phone while holding a WalMart BB gun in a freaking WalMart and the police killed him. He did nothing deserving to be shot and they killed him.
And they weren't charged. How could you think that's right? How can you justify that? I don't want to live in a country where there is any person that thinks that is acceptable.
