- 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 4:35 pm to MSMHater
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:35 pm to MSMHater
quote:
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.
Of course...then all you have to do is say "oops, my bad, but he was fat and not compliant"...it's a get out of jail free card.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:35 pm to cwill
quote:
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?
I believe that the more militarized the police become the greater the chance for police stepping over the line.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:36 pm to Paluka
quote:
I believe that the more militarized the police become the greater the chance for police stepping over the line.
Agreed...it's a terrible direction.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:38 pm to cwill
quote:
Of course...then all you have to do is say "oops, my bad, but he was fat and not compliant"...it's a get out of jail free card.
This is almost universally true. Even when the cops are quite clearly out of control. How a jury watched the Kelly Thomas beating and voted to acquit is beyond me. But there's a large percentage of society which respects the office of the police more than the respect is deserved.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 4:42 pm to the808bass
quote:
But there's a large percentage of society which respects the office of the police more than the respect is deserved.
It's why GJs almost always fail to indict cops in situations where anyone else would have.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 5:25 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
It really makes me wonder where they pull these GJ members from
I really think the system is fricking rigged every time a cop goes up against a grand jury. The state will do whatever they can to protect its enforcement arm.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 5:49 pm to the808bass
quote:I'm not sure police have an obligation to be altruistic?
"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.
quote:Ok. I get that. So what laws should be ignored for them? Not arguing that they're shouldn't be any difference, just wonder where the line should be drawn.
It's a person with Down's for chrissakes.
And, as a follow up, how is a policeman supposed to know where that line lies? We never want cops playing "judge and jury", but that works both ways... unfortunately.
If we we expect them not to use judgement on the job. Seemingly senseless arrest are part of the consequences.
(FTR, I'd prefer they be allowed some room for judgement.)
quote:I'm not understanding. Are you saying motorists are in greater danger than the cop making a traffic stop? Or that the stoping cop shouldn't take precautions to protect himself from motorists until they prove intent to harm him? Not trying to be argumentative. Just not understanding what you're getting at.
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?
quote:Is it? Roughly 31,000 people will die in car accidents this year. One estimate is 280,000 will die this year from obesity related disease. How does police-induced asphyxia stack up against that?
How many people dying from asphyxia/chest/neck compressions will it take to institute change? This is a known problem
I'm not suggesting we should simply ignore it. But on the list of hung we should be worried about, it seems overblown. It just seems like we're having an orchestrated emotional reaction here.
That always makes me suspicious. Especially, when I see lede's like the OP... which seem crafted specifically to reinforce that emotional response...
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 5:52 pm to cwill
quote:Right. And perhaps that decision was poor. Or perhaps the decision was limited by the person's actions or size.
They made a decision to use physical force against a downs syndrome person which resulted in his death.
But he wasn't killed for watching a movie twice. And it's silly to say he was.
quote:I don't think that's in doubt.
So, yeah, they killed him. Perhaps negligently, but they killed him.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 5:55 pm to cwill
quote:We weren't talking about law, but the victim's family's grief. But the certainly makes differentiation. There is a large difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, negligent manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter and self defense.
And IMV and the laws view malice isn't required to bear responsibility for the death of another.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:02 pm to Hawkeye95
Isn't this almost two years old?
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:08 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
This narrative has gotten tired.
Negligent police who are quick to use force that ends up killing people is getting old.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:09 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I'm not understanding. Are you saying motorists are in greater danger than the cop making a traffic stop? Or that the stoping cop shouldn't take precautions to protect himself from motorists until they prove intent to harm him? Not trying to be argumentative. Just not understanding what you're getting at.
Cops want us to respect their often hyper-reactive responses based upon incidences that have a very small statistical chance of happening. Then, when the shoe is on the other foot and they've killed someone through negligence or carelessness or whatever you want to term their issue here, we're supposed to recognize that the incidents are really rare. They don't get it both ways.
quote:Who said anything about laws being ignored? I don't need them to ignore laws. I need them to not kill fat people through chest and neck compression in non-violent confrontations. That's also the part of the judgment I want them to exercise. I do want them to utilize judgment on the job. I don't see a lot of that in these publicized incidences. And the rush to defend the indefensible keeps widening the chasm between civilians and LEOs.
What laws should be ignored
Your last argument is just stupid. Fewer than 50 cops will be killed in the line of duty by violence this year. Based upon your argument, I think we can cross that off the list of things to worry about.
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:10 pm to cwill
quote:
Of course...then all you have to do is say "oops, my bad, but he was fat and not compliant"...it's a get out of jail free card.
Yea bc there will always be a bunch of TAs that defend them regardless. This is in addition to their fellow cop brethren, of course.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:14 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
But he wasn't killed for watching a movie twice.
frick it. He kinda was. If he had a drug conviction, the police would've released it to sully his reputation and justify their reaction. Another time they want it both ways. He didn't have a drug conviction. He wasn't pimping hoes. He wasn't running a fight club. He was sitting in a movie theater watching a fricking movie. That's what precipitated police force on a young man with Down's syndrome.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:14 pm to the808bass
quote:
Your last argument is just stupid. Fewer than 50 cops will be killed in the line of duty by violence this year.
We are already past 50 this year. 108 is the total for 14 with 58 being by violence.
LINK
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:18 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
Sorry. I went with the gunfire ones and missed the others. That doesn't change the argument. If we need thousands of deaths to be concerned about something, police deaths in the line of duty through violence isn't a blip on the radar. Feel free to change the tack of his argument.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:22 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:
We are already past 50 this year. 108 is the total for 14 with 58 being by violence.
LINK
that includes car accidents, heart attacks, etc, not just homicides. 27 is the actual number (sorry that was for 2013)
LINK
Cops kill 400+, probably closer to 1000 citizens each year.
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:27 pm to the808bass
quote:
Sorry. I went with the gunfire ones and missed the others. That doesn't change the argument. If we need thousands of deaths to be concerned about something, police deaths in the line of duty through violence isn't a blip on the radar. Feel free to change the tack of his argument.
No problem, but we have over 500K injuries a year also. Only about 1% of police encounters result in violence. The vast majority of them are started by the bad guy. Do we need to train better? Yes and we need to hire better. Look at Cleveland. Bad tactics and a bad hire led to that.
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:29 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:Glad we agree!
Negligent police who are quick to use force that ends up killing people is getting old.
Posted on 12/8/14 at 6:34 pm to Navytiger74
quote:It is because everyone buys into the bullshite claim that the cop was "fearing for his life".
What kind of training do these dopey fricking policemen receive? It needs an overhaul. And do GJ instructions now include the admonition that a cop is justified in doing whatever the frick he wants if a suspect resists in any way?
Also, people don't want to believe that cops are out of control.
This post was edited on 12/8/14 at 6:36 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News