- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: White people feeling the pangs of change
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:03 pm to upgrayedd
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:03 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Michael Brown - a guy who escalated a potentially docile situation by fighting with a cop and going for his gun. Yet he is immortalized as an innocent kid who was executed simply for being black.
Eric Garner - more of a case of general police brutality compounded by a policy (cracking down on selling loosies) set forth by city hall. Race was not the issue.
Yep. I'm anti big government/police state and the Michael Brown case doesn't bother me.
The Eric Garner case REALLY bothers me. Negligent homicide, imo. Classic case of police having disregard for the public and being completely given a pass for things that government should not be doing.
2
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:07 pm to Jagd Tiger
quote:
I think you're a moron who drinks the media koolaid and has little ability to actually think for yourself.
Hey, frick you, bitch.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:09 pm to Asgard Device
Why does the garner case bother you? You don't think cops are allowed under the law to tackle s guy who resists a lawful arrest?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:11 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Why does the garner case bother you? You don't think cops are allowed under the law to tackle s guy who resists a lawful arrest?
and kill them when restrained? No.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:15 pm to Asgard Device
You think he killed on purpose?
You think that would have killed 10 dudes out of 100?
You think that would have killed 10 dudes out of 100?
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:20 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
You think he killed on purpose?
I doubt the officer was intelligent enough to know that choking somebody out like that could kill them.
That's why I said negligent homicide. It was cringe-worthy just watching. frick that Michael Brown guy, though. If that dude came at me and I was all alone, I'd probably shoot him as well.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:20 pm to baybeefeetz
Rich white people have controlled this country since its inception and will continue to do so far into the future. The idea that affluent whites are losing their grip on society is a narrow view derived simply from looking at populations and isolated patterns of minority success namely in politics.
The fact is that of the wealthiest 10% of Americans, over 90% are white. White people and companies owned by white people account for 85% of all political donations. To claim white people dont call the shots is just blatantly false.
The fact is that of the wealthiest 10% of Americans, over 90% are white. White people and companies owned by white people account for 85% of all political donations. To claim white people dont call the shots is just blatantly false.
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 11:21 pm
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:20 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
You think he killed on purpose? You think that would have killed 10 dudes out of 100?
Why in the hell do you think the policy regarding police restraints exists? Because this isn't an unheard of event. There have been several other instances this year of people dying from chest or neck compression in police holds.
You're pretending because the likelihood is low that it's unknowable. That's incorrect. It is a well-known problem and that's why they instituted the policy in the first place.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:22 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
I doubt the officer was intelligent enough to know that choking somebody out like that could kill them.
He should have been. It happens somewhat regularly. Maybe the police isn't covering this stuff in training. But it seems pretty rudimentary.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:22 pm to baybeefeetz
A more accurate description is the Anglo-American culture of liberal republicanism (both lowercase) is either ending or is at least being strongly challenged.
Throughout most of human history, most cultures have emphasized their own in-group over others. The Anglo-American culture has actually been more inclusive than anything else because of an emphasis on contract law and enunciated, written rights (starting with Magna Carta through Common Law and then the Constitution).
The historical norm wherein in-groups favor their own has become a reemerging trend in the US. Many minority groups (particularly immigrant groups) in the US cannot comprehend the libertarian type culture and view it as a facade.
It's really two completely different cultures.
Throughout most of human history, most cultures have emphasized their own in-group over others. The Anglo-American culture has actually been more inclusive than anything else because of an emphasis on contract law and enunciated, written rights (starting with Magna Carta through Common Law and then the Constitution).
The historical norm wherein in-groups favor their own has become a reemerging trend in the US. Many minority groups (particularly immigrant groups) in the US cannot comprehend the libertarian type culture and view it as a facade.
It's really two completely different cultures.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:24 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Negligent homicide, imo.
I agree, and if the estate of Eric Garner isn't suing the dog shite out of the NYPD then I don't know what this country is anymore, but in my opinion and in the legal system's judgement, the cop wasn't guilty of a crime. I respect that. Everyone should.
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 11:25 pm
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:27 pm to the808bass
The policy was not for the kind of move that cop did. The grand jury recognized that.
Also, you avoided my question. Whether 10 out of 100 would have died goes to whether it was foreseeable to the cop that garner would die from what he did. Nobody on the scene that day thought Garner was going to die. It was a fluke to the point of not being negligent.
Also, you avoided my question. Whether 10 out of 100 would have died goes to whether it was foreseeable to the cop that garner would die from what he did. Nobody on the scene that day thought Garner was going to die. It was a fluke to the point of not being negligent.
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 11:30 pm
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:32 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
The policy was not for the kind of move that cop did. The grand jury recognized that.
You're conpletely guessing. You have no idea why they decided what they did or what evidence they were or weren't presented.
Secondly, he did violate police policy. He compressed the neck. That is a violation of the policy. You can try to parse that away. It still happened and is still a violation of policy. Because it has the potential to be lethal. Like it was in this case.
quote:
Also, you avoided my question. Whether 10 out of 100 would have died goes to whether it was foreseeable to the cop that garner would die from what he did. Nobody on the scene that say thought Garner was going to die. It was a fluke to the point of not being negligent.
No, it doesn't. None of that dismisses the culpability. Policies exist because of the broad experience and base of knowledge of a department over and above the individual. So, whether or not the individual officer could have reasonably known that the restraint was dangerous (he should have), his department knew and had instituted a policy specifically to address the likelihood of this incident. He ignored that policy and killed a guy.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:34 pm to the808bass
I've told you this before, but that is not how the law works w respect to negligence.
I can't wait for all the grand jury shite to be released or leaked. I am guessing but it's an educated guess.
I can't wait for all the grand jury shite to be released or leaked. I am guessing but it's an educated guess.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:35 pm to the808bass
quote:
He ignored that policy and killed a guy.
And that guy's family has a right to sue the ever living frick out of the NYPD, and they will win, but that doesn't mean that the cop who put the hold on him is necessarily guilty of a crime. The system found that he wasn't in this case. Should he be fired? Yes. Should the NYPD pay out the arse for this incident? Yes. Should the cop be locked up and the key thrown away? NO! And yet, that is what the barbarians are calling for in the streets.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:36 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
I've told you this before, but that is not how the law works w respect to negligence
It actually is exactly how the law works with respect to negligence.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:38 pm to the808bass
I am saying that the policy doesn't establish negligence per se. An honest person can easily look at the VIDEO and say there is no way a reasonable person should have thought THAT takedown would kill a guy. Regardless of that policy.
This post was edited on 12/21/14 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:39 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
And that guy's family has a right to sue the ever living frick out of the NYPD, and they will win, but that doesn't mean that the cop who put the hold on him is necessarily guilty of a crime.
It's awesome. I know if someone killed my family member, I'd be super excited about getting some money.
quote:
The system found that he wasn't in this case. Should he be fired? Yes.
He won't be.
quote:
Should the NYPD pay out the arse for this incident? Yes.
This is stupid, IMO. It's blood money. If you're liable for his death, there should be culpability beyond an insurance company writing a check.
quote:
Should the cop be locked up and the key thrown away? NO! And yet, that is what the barbarians are calling for in the streets.
I'd have been delighted with just a trial. He wouldn't have been found guilty. He should have been indicted. We all know it.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:41 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
I am saying that the policy isn't negligence per se. An honest person can easily look at the VIDEO and say there is no way a reasonable person should have thought THAT takedown would kill a guy. Regardless of that policy.
Policy exists in part because of statistical outliers which aren't part of a "reasonable person's" experience. In technical/professional cases of negligence, a layman's perspective is irrelevant.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 11:42 pm to the808bass
Haha wtf are you talking about?
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News