- 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: Grand Jury Doesn't Indict Cops who kill man with down syndrome
Posted on 12/8/14 at 2:55 pm to CollegeFBRules
Posted on 12/8/14 at 2:55 pm to CollegeFBRules
I would have picked Dan as the first cop defender to come in and celebrate this.
0
Posted on 12/8/14 at 2:58 pm to CollegeFBRules
If having Down's Syndrome made his death more likely, the police should have known that. I would think it would add to their culpability. Not lessen it. But I'm sure the DA presented it on such a way that it seemed like a positive for the cops.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 2:59 pm to Hawkeye95
delete, posted in error.
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 3:00 pm to Hawkeye95
fricking piece of shite cops...
Just forwarded to drudge, hopefully this one will make it to the page along with the Garner story.
Just forwarded to drudge, hopefully this one will make it to the page along with the Garner story.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 3:03 pm to the808bass
quote:
If having Down's Syndrome made his death more likely, the police should have known that. I would think it would add to their culpability. Not lessen it. But I'm sure the DA presented it on such a way that it seemed like a positive for the cops.
Perhaps, but if there was no clarification given for such a ridiculous statement, any grand jury worth a frick would have rolled their eyes and called the cops morons.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 3:05 pm to Hawkeye95
The police appear to be taught that if someone does not do what you instruct them to do then make them do it. I can understand this sort of approach in some ways, especially with the police becoming more and more militarized.
I have done training with cops on how to deal with the mentally ill. The concept of de-escalating a situation is one that is hard for many cops (especially the younger ones) to learn. Every body seems to want to push a person harder to "comply" rather than giving a little time to allow things to settle down.
They are like the goofball tourist that talks louder to someone who doesn't speak English (except it is with force). WHAT I AM SAYING!!
I have done training with cops on how to deal with the mentally ill. The concept of de-escalating a situation is one that is hard for many cops (especially the younger ones) to learn. Every body seems to want to push a person harder to "comply" rather than giving a little time to allow things to settle down.
They are like the goofball tourist that talks louder to someone who doesn't speak English (except it is with force). WHAT I AM SAYING!!
Posted on 12/8/14 at 3:07 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:
They were working for a private company so they probably wouldn't be wearing cameras even if the department required them. This is a bad situation no doubt and I would like to read the facts, not just a biased piece of reporting.
It is a sad fact that nowadays reporting seems to be more fiction than fact and that the reporters seems to just try and enflame the public for ratings instead of trying to find out the truth.
good points for sure. i just put myself in the position of any cop/security detail etc who sees a DS guy sticking around for a second go at a movie and just walk the frick away. i don't care if i get fired.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 3:22 pm to the808bass
quote:I wouldn't be surprised to find out he never even mentioned that the guy had Down's, or simply worked around it as best as possible. I really really doubt that a picture of the deceased was shown.
But I'm sure the DA presented it on such a way that it seemed like a positive for the cops.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 3:46 pm to McLemore
quote:
good points for sure. i just put myself in the position of any cop/security detail etc who sees a DS guy sticking around for a second go at a movie and just walk the frick away. i don't care if i get fired.
One of the many reasons I don't work off duty details. I would like to look at all the details of this case before I make a judgment either way.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 3:57 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:Really? That's what happened? The cops said "This guy won't leave, let's kill the dude!!"
Grand Jury Doesn't Indict Cops who kill man with down syndrome for refusing to leave a movie theater.
Or did some other stuff happen?
This narrative has gotten tired.
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:00 pm to Taxing Authority
You could read the story. They handcuffed him, "left him" on his stomach (or laid on top of him for a while - more likely) and he died from asphyxia.
Do you feel better about it now?
Do you feel better about it now?
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:09 pm to the808bass
quote:I also read that the cops rendered first aid. And that the guy was large enough to need three pairs of handcuffs.
You could read the story. They handcuffed him, "left him" on his stomach (or laid on top of him for a while - more likely) and he died from asphyxia.
So... Did he die because the police made a decision to kill him for seeing a movie twice as the thread slug suggests? Or did someother stuff happen? Like... they tried to effect a lawful arrest, and some other stuff happened?
quote:why would anyone feel good about this?
Do you feel better about it now?
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:12 pm to Taxing Authority
Of course the police didn't say "let's kill this Down's kid who wants to watch the movie again!!" Practically, for him and his family, that doesn't make a difference.
How many people have to die from police holds and restraints arising from non-violent violations before we institute change? What's a good number here? 25? 200?
How many people have to die from police holds and restraints arising from non-violent violations before we institute change? What's a good number here? 25? 200?
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:12 pm to Paluka
quote:
The police appear to be taught that if someone does not do what you instruct them to do then make them do it. I can understand this sort of approach in some ways, especially with the police becoming more and more militarized.
I don't really understand your point...are you saying it's OK since the cops are becoming more militarized? Or do you see that as a symptom of the militarization of police?
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:23 pm to the808bass
quote:thanks.
Of course the police didn't say "let's kill this Down's kid who wants to watch the movie again!!"
quote:
Grand Jury Doesn't Indict Cops who kill man with down syndrome for refusing to leave a movie theater.
quote:It doesn't? It would for me. One is a malicious act. One is result of some very poor circumstances at least partially out of control of the arresting officers.
Practically, for him and his family, that doesn't make a difference.
Doesn't assuage anyone's grief. But neither will revenge extracted from those that had no intent of doing anything wrong.
quote:I honestly don't know. But I'd reckon that the vast majority of people that are arrested, handcuffed, and peacefully lay on the ground don't die.
How many people have to die from police holds and restraints arising from non-violent violations before we institute change?
Seems like auto accidents would be much larger concern.
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:28 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Doesn't assuage anyone's grief. But neither will revenge extracted from those that had no intent of doing anything wrong.
"No intent" isn't the greatest defense to me. I'm sure their noble intentions of clearing the theater of this nuisance were altruistic in the extreme.
It's a person with Down's for chrissakes.
quote:
don't die
Correct. And the majority of cops who stop motorists aren't subject to any sort of danger. But the odds aren't applied in reverse, are they?
How many people dying from asphyxia/chest/neck compressions will it take to institute change? This is a known problem. Just because cops want to pretend it's a fluke doesn't make it a fluke.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:28 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
So... Did he die because the police made a decision to kill him for seeing a movie twice as the thread slug suggests?
They made a decision to use physical force against a downs syndrome person which resulted in his death. So, yeah, they killed him. Perhaps negligently, but they killed him.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:31 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
One is a malicious act. One is result of some very poor circumstances at least partially out of control of the arresting officers.
They were the ones who had all the control and they thought the best avenue when dealing with a downs person was to physically assault and restrain him. And IMV and the laws view malice isn't required to bear responsibility for the death of another.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:32 pm to Hawkeye95
The militarization of the police forces and their subsequent attitudes and actions are the problems in all these cases (to differing degrees). It's not about race. It's about the police.
The race angle is great for the news outlets to make money, but it's a false diversion from what 'real conversations' that we need to have. It's about the police.
The race angle is great for the news outlets to make money, but it's a false diversion from what 'real conversations' that we need to have. It's about the police.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:33 pm to cwill
quote:
And IMV and the laws view malice isn't required to bear responsibility for the death of another.
if you're not wearing a badge.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News