Al Sharpton to meet with Obama over Ferguson

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Was Wilson trying to make Brown out to be a "jerk"? Did the video make him out to be a jerk. A jerk can be offensive, but that does not make him a criminal. The video shows Brown to be a criminal. A lawbreaker, not a jerk. His actions against Wilson were criminal, not the actions of a jerk. Nor, as far as I've read, did Wilson say that Brown looked like he had a death wish. I don't think that kind of wish could be detected in facial expressions. You inserted that to intensify your depiction. Maybe just your perspective?

But, gee, doesn't Wilson have a right to his perspective. I thought you were a proponent of perspectives?

[Spence]A lot of good kids steal stuff, doesn't make it right but his behavior towards the clerk shows his attitude.

Good to know . . . but doesn't seem to be a response to my post. The vast majority of good kids don't steal stuff off shelves of stores then manhandle the clerk when he tries to stop them. Calling such behavior being a jerk is a rather mild way to discount criminality. A "jerk" would be a slang expression for someone who might be stupid, offensive, rude, or insensitive. Criminal behavior would not normally be considered an attribute of a mere jerk, although most criminals might be jerks.

[Spence]There's a big gap between intimidating a store clerk and attacking a uniformed officer and taunting said officer to shoot him as Wilson claimed.

Is there really a BIG gap? Especially if under the influence of THC which might effect someone prone to violent behavior? Anyway, the way you use the word "jerk," it certainly would apply in this case as well as his behavior with the clerk. And his behavior was criminal in both the confrontation with the clerk and with the policeman.

And there was no need to embellish Wilson's testimony by saying that he said it looked like Brown had a death wish when he said no such thing. And Wilson's testimony was consistent with the evidence, and, here's a word you like, plausible.

And, after all, Wilson's testimony was his "perspective." Being big on perspective, I'ld think you would respect that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It would appear that while the grand jury has a lot of power the prosecutor is very influential in shaping the environment in which they work.

Excuse me, but wouldn't this be true of all prosecutors. Even federal ones.

This one even had a lot of family that wore a badge.

Shall we disqualify applicants for prosecutor if they have police in their families? How about federal prosecutors . . . or federal attorneys general who have a background in so-called civil rights movements and affiliations with radical groups. How about Presidents who also have such backgrounds or families who are affiliated with anti-American values and who wish to fundamentally transform the nation as well as disregarding the Constitution rather than upholding their oath to defend it?

Shall we selectively decide? Is that "fair"? I believe the word "fair" is big with you.

I don't think they have to nationalize the process. The state could ensure it's managed properly.

Thank you. Although I would be more confident if you actually said that the state is the proper, yes--Constitutionally proper--jurisdiction for managing the process. Not the federal government.

That's not to say it would change the outcome but the people would likely have more faith the process. Seems like there's a high potential for a conflict of interest.

Omigosh. We have come to a place and time when every action can be considered a conflict of interest. Aren't all interests in conflict with someone else's interest in a wholly fractured society in which every third person has a different interest? How have we come to be so divided? How have we drifted from a society which largely had fundamentally uniform values to one in which conflicting "perspectives" are more the norm? A place where "seems like," "perspective," "perhaps, maybe, not sure, appear . . ." and the like hold sway over definite statements?

Spence, "it seems like" there would be "a high potential of conflict of interest" no matter who "they" appointed as prosecutor. It would certainly "seem" so if Eric Holder appointed one.

Stunning in that you have a video which clearly show an officer using an improper use of force against someone who while agitated didn't appear to be an imminent threat to the police or those around him. I believe the officer didn't intend to kill him and the guys health likely played a big factor. But even if you give the police the benefit of doubt it's not a free for all.

It "seems" that the victim did consider it a free for all. He didn't "seem" to think that he needed to obey the police, and that he could tell them to leave him alone. Even though he was doing something illegal.

[Piscator]

Not saying Garner deserved to die but lets be serious here (black or white) this is another situation of a guy who didn't help impact the outcome. This guy had a long history of more than 31 arrests including assault and grand larceny. He obviously doesn't know how to follow the rules, again didn't deserve to die but I doubt that the intention of this cop was for this guy to die either. He was resisting arrest and that was pretty clear, had he not resisted I'm not sure this criminal would be dead right now. I also read that at the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation (again, he must think rules don't apply to him). The chokehold the cop put on him contributed to his death but Garner, who weighed 350 pounds, supposedly suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea (wonder what kind of health insurance he had). Im not a doctor but I'd bet his poor health was the main cause of his death. Also, he supposedly didn't die at the scene of the confrontation but suffered a heart attack in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Anyone wonder why cops kept busting Garner for selling cigarettes? The price of cigarettes in city of NY is the highest in the nation and half the cost is taxes. Since this case is portrayed as a white on black crime, it is ironic that in 2009 President Obama signed into law the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act which raised the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes from $.39 to $1.01. This, of course, was to save lives. And in 2010 or 2011 Senator Parker, a black Democrat raised the NY State tax to $4.35 a pack, again to save lives. In the uber "liberal" city of NY there is another $1.50 per pack tax added, to save lives, and the federal excise tax added to all of the above tops the total tax burden on a pack to $6.80.

The city made it a priority for the police to arrest any illegal sale of untaxed cigarettes. The amount of money involved makes it obvious why.

So, now, a white cop is being branded by the black "community" as a murderer for killing a black man who was selling a commodity which was made a black market (no pun intended) item by "well intended" black politicians as well as other "liberal" politicians. And it was politicians who demanded the cops to crack down on such sales.

Sometimes (actually quite often, even usually) political masterminds create laws for our good which turn out to have unintended consequences. Here is an article in Forbes that talks a bit about it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphi...ed-cigarettes/

[Piscator]

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Not saying Garner deserved to die but lets be serious here (black or white) this is another situation of a guy who didn't help impact the outcome. This guy had a long history of more than 31 arrests including assault and grand larceny. He obviously doesn't know how to follow the rules, again didn't deserve to die but I doubt that the intention of this cop was for this guy to die either. He was resisting arrest and that was pretty clear, had he not resisted I'm not sure this criminal would be dead right now. I also read that at the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation (again, he must think rules don't apply to him). The chokehold the cop put on him contributed to his death but Garner, who weighed 350 pounds, supposedly suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea (wonder what kind of health insurance he had). Im not a doctor but I'd bet his poor health was the main cause of his death. Also, he supposedly didn't die at the scene of the confrontation but suffered a heart attack in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This article supports what you say and goes even further:

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/.../?subscriber=1

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This article supports what you say and goes even further:

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/.../?subscriber=1

The video of the Staten Island incident breaks my heart, to see someone die so needlessly.

That being said...Spence might say that this man was essentially executed for selling cigarettes, as he said the Ferguson kid was killed for jaywalking (those are his words). That is demonstrably false. The orifginal crimes in these cases (jaywalking in Ferguson, selling cigarettes in NYC) could not matter less. What matters, all that matters, is that in both cases, the deceased had the opportunity to peacefully submit, and in both cases, they chose to resist. In the Staten Island case, the guy slapped the officer's hand away and said "get away from me".

This guy had been arrested 31 tmes, and all 31 times, he was released back to the street. If anyone knows that the cops aren't out hunting for black criminals, it's this guy in NYC. Yet HE chose to escalate the situation. When you resist arrest, you are guaranteeing a physical confrontation with police, and in some of those cases (especially when the assailant has serious medical issues), the outcome can be disastrous.

The cops cannot let people walk away who choose not to submit. If they did that, no one would submit to an arrest.

I saw one lunatic on Foxnews last night, a black activist, support hi sclaim that blacks are targeted by saying "the cops took John Gitti in, they didn't kill him". Did John Gotti resist arrest?

These people are so thoughtless, it's beyond words. Certainly, there is room for the police to receiv eth ebest modern training to try to minimize the damage done when the criminals choose to confront the police rather than submit. But I see no crime on that video, other than the crime of resisting arrest, which ended in tragedy.

Also, I hear that there was a black female sargeant on the scene in NYC, who di dnot tell the officer to let go, which should remove all discussion of race from this event. It doesn't stop the idiots from claiming racism, but it should.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The video of the Staten Island incident breaks my heart, to see someone die so needlessly.

That being said...Spence might say that this man was essentially executed for selling cigarettes, as he said the Ferguson kid was killed for jaywalking (those are his words). That is demonstrably false. The orifginal crimes in these cases (jaywalking in Ferguson, selling cigarettes in NYC) could not matter less. What matters, all that matters, is that in both cases, the deceased had the opportunity to peacefully submit, and in both cases, they chose to resist. In the Staten Island case, the guy slapped the officer's hand away and said "get away from me".

This guy had been arrested 31 tmes, and all 31 times, he was released back to the street. If anyone knows that the cops aren't out hunting for black criminals, it's this guy in NYC. Yet HE chose to escalate the situation. When you resist arrest, you are guaranteeing a physical confrontation with police, and in some of those cases (especially when the assailant has serious medical issues), the outcome can be disastrous.

The cops cannot let people walk away who choose not to submit. If they did that, no one would submit to an arrest.

I saw one lunatic on Foxnews last night, a black activist, support hi sclaim that blacks are targeted by saying "the cops took John Gitti in, they didn't kill him". Did John Gotti resist arrest?

These people are so thoughtless, it's beyond words. Certainly, there is room for the police to receiv eth ebest modern training to try to minimize the damage done when the criminals choose to confront the police rather than submit. But I see no crime on that video, other than the crime of resisting arrest, which ended in tragedy.

Also, I hear that there was a black female sargeant on the scene in NYC, who di dnot tell the officer to let go, which should remove all discussion of race from this event. It doesn't stop the idiots from claiming racism, but it should.

That was all pretty much corroborated in the Fresh Ink article. It's not that long and an easy read. Although most of it has pertinent details, a few key points for those who don't want to read it:

"While protesters are trying to make this about race, it must be noted that the police showed up in response to complaints from black business owners. The arrest was ordered by a black officer, and the arrest itself was supervised by a black officer, a female sergeant.

A crackdown on the sale of illegal, untaxed cigarettes - called "loosies" since they are sold in singles rather than in packs - had been ordered just days before Garner's arrest by the highest ranking black police officer in the NYPD, Philip Banks.

So a black officer ordered the crackdown, black business owners called for the arrest, a black officer ordered the arrest, and a black officer supervised the arrest itself. It's also worth noting that the 23-member grand jury which refused to indict the arresting officer included nine non-white members. Ask yourself how many of those facts you have heard from any member of the race-obsessed, low-information media."

And:

"The patrolman who wrestled Garner to the ground, Daniel Pantaleo, did it by the book, using a takedown maneuver every policeman is taught at the academy. He did not, in fact, use a chokehold, which is defined by the NYPD as "any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air." Now Garner was clearly able to breathe, since that's the only way he could repeatedly say, "I can't breathe."

The autopsy explicitly declares that there was no injury to Garner's windpipe or to his neck bones. This was a wrestler's headlock, not a chokehold. (As a sidenote, chokeholds, while contrary to police policy, are not in fact illegal in the state of New York when an officer uses one to restrain a resisting subject. They are not even illegal in New York City, at the insistence of liberal mayor Bill DeBlasio.) Patrolman Pantaleo was not indicted for the simple reason that he did nothing wrong."

[detbuch]

Hardcore progressives have promoted a national police force at least as far back as the 1930's as expressed by one of FDR's brain trust, Rexford Tugwell. Of course, as with most of the more "extreme" wishes of progressives, especially unconstitutional ones, not much was, nor is, publicly made of it. The Constitution delegates police power to the states, not the federal government. So our "analysts" of politics in the media or in academe either don't think it would ever happen, or they secretly hope it does.

In the meantime, federal intrusion into local policing has slowly but gradually grown. Either by direct implementation such as providing funds for hiring more police, or equipping police departments with various weapons or equipment. Of course, with federal "aid" comes attached federal strings. If not explicit, federal wishes are implied or recommended by "guidelines" or by changing guidelines for federal officers which are hoped and implied to be implemented by state and local police departments.

Eric Holder has created another one eliminating racial or ethnic or group profiling: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...guidelines.htm

Trumped up crises such as Ferguson or the Garner cases, must not go to waste. They provide more and more reason, in the consciousness of the public, for Federal incursion and influence in all governmental areas, including policing,

[Jim in CT]

The difference between what actually happened, and how it's being spun by the media, is astounding. In the Staten Island case, the original complaint was made by a black store owner, who didn't like that his guy was illegally taking business away from him. The cops are obligated to the store owner to address the situation. It was a black female officer at the scene who ordered the arrest. And it was the dead guy who is 100% responsible for causing the situation to escalate into a physical confrontation, which was not a good idea due to his health issues. There was no choke hold applied that I know of (proven by the fact that the guy was speaking while in the headlock, which you cannot do while in a choke hold).

There are bad cops out there who need to be dealt with. But just because there is a dead blac person and a white cop, THAT ALONE isn't evidence of anything. The dishonesty is unbelievable, as is the refusal of the left to even begin to have th econversation that's necessary to make improvements to blacks in poverty.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But just because there is a dead blac person and a white cop, THAT ALONE isn't evidence of anything.

Well . . . yeah, its the evidence of something . . . even guilt.

Let's expand the picture and summarize:

A black president, and then a black senator, helped to significantly achieve a high enough tax/price on the cost of cigarettes in NY so that it was very profitable to make them a black market commodity. Which made it, at least economically, a priority to stop the illegal sales. So then, a black officer ordered the crackdown, and a black criminal was selling the illegal stuff, so black business owners called for his arrest, a black officer ordered the arrest, and a black officer supervised the arrest itself. So far, so good.

But an anomaly occurred. Instead of finishing the chain of events in a consistent way, a white officer did the final takedown. He, apparently, did it according to the book. But, if the process had been consistent from top to bottom, a black officer would have done the take-down. Presumably, all would have been good. There would have been no need for "protests," or a grand jury decision to indict, or the federal DOJ to be involved.

but there was an anomaly. A white officer intruded on black events. The white officer broke the orderly process. Being as there is a racially based constituency in our country which is on the lookout for such an anomaly, this became the immediate, a priori, cause for investigations and the assumption of guilt. And mainly, a priori, guilt by policing while white. So, you see, there was evidence of something, even of guilt--guilty of being white.