Two NYPD Officers Killed in Brooklyn Ambush

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

Well, he's gotta point. I think the cop was over aggressive, but it is true that if he hadn't resisted arrest he would indeed be alive.
Lest not us also forget that Garner had well over 30 criminal charges in the last 25+ years. Eventually that will catch up to you. I know that seems pretty blunt and controversial, but it is true; this man had a violent past. Multiple assault, domestic abuse, and weapon charges.
Like I said before, the cop was out of line and should've been charged with manslaughter. But Eric Garner isn't some great father and just a random guy out on the street getting choked to death.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Have you seen the video? Did that look like a an uncontrollable resistance of arrest? The truth is that he was NOT committing a crime at the time of choke hold. Period. His past, according to how our justice system works, had very little to do with this.

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by BVS

Have you seen the video? Did that look like a an uncontrollable resistance of arrest? The truth is that he was NOT committing a crime at the time of choke hold. Period. His past, according to how our justice system works, had very little to do with this.

You totally missed my point here.
I said that the cop was using excessive force and should've been charged. However, Garner was resisting arrest at the time, which is a crime.
And with regards to the 2nd part, I was alluding to the fact that living a life of crime (which is a fair statement to make) eventually catches up to you. Continuing to not learn from mistakes and not turning your life around will most likely cause more serious consequences down the road. That's how life works. Obviously this is on a much larger scale, but it's a basic rule of life that stubbornness and unwillingness to learn has it's consequences.
It's unfortunate what happened and was a bad situation all around. Nothing good came from that incident.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

You totally missed my point here.
I said that the cop was using excessive force and should've been charged. However, Garner was resisting arrest at the time, which is a crime.
And with regards to the 2nd part, I was alluding to the fact that living a life of crime (which is a fair statement to make) eventually catches up to you. Continuing to not learn from mistakes and not turning your life around will most likely cause more serious consequences down the road. That's how life works. Obviously this is on a much larger scale, but it's a basic rule of life that stubbornness and unwillingness to learn has it's consequences.
It's unfortunate what happened and was a bad situation all around. Nothing good came from that incident.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Wow... you thought that was resistance? What a joke...

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BVS

The truth is that he was NOT committing a crime at the time of choke hold. Period.

That actually would not be the truth.

He wasn't committing a violent crime, or even a serious crime... but yes, he was alleged to be in the act of committing a crime when police officers approached him.

A very minor crime... the selling of loosies... untaxed cigarettes. He resisted arrest, and a tragedy occurred. He was also out on parole at the time of the incident. He had a lengthy history of arrests. Does that mean he should have been killed? Of course not. But when you consider that he was a convict with a history of violence, on parole, and under suspicion of committing illegal acts... added with his size, and now the size of the police response makes a tad bit more sense.


The coroners who testified to the grand jury stated that the pressure placed on his chest, combined with his health issues, is more likely what led to the cardiac arrest that killed him than the hold the officer put on him, which did not render him unconscious, nor did it cause him to be unable to breath, which is the common narrative, but not the actual facts.

The medical examiner ruled it a homicide. Yes, that's true. Most people hear that and instantly assume that means he was murdered. The actual definition doesn't even say that a crime was committed. It just says that an action by an individual helped cause his death. It's up to a jury to decide if a crime was committed.

The officer should not be charged with murder. The facts simply don't support this. Could a lesser charge been brought? Maybe. But as he didn't die from asphyxiation, it would have been hard to convict him. Should interdepartmental discipline be done? I'd argue yes. He didn't follow police procedure. He also didn't kill this man.

The practice of going after low level crimes, the "broken window" policy of policing, as a way to stop high level crimes from occurring is a common practice. It was brought to this department by Commissioner Bratton, as a replacement for the stop and frisk policy, and is all part of deBlasio's platform; Not some big police conspiracy.

This. Was. Not. Ferguson.

It's time for us to get back to the real issues. Want to protest the socioeconomic issues that are holding our poor communities back, and have been for decades?

I'm there with you, arm and arm.

Want to go after the guns, getting them off the streets, attacking the gun lobbies and the hard right and their idiotic arguments in favor of gun rights?

I'm there.

Decriminalization of minor drug offenses?

Sign me up.

You want to protest the sorry state of our schools in poor communities? To offer alternative education to poor families just like well to do families get? (the same kind of schools deBlasio tried to shut down as a campaign promise to the teacher's unions?). You want to fight for more after school programs? Rehabilitation programs for young adults who've been in and out of the justice system, giving them a shot at a real life?

Tell me where to go. I'm there.

Marching up and down the streets, assaulting officers, saying the rank and file police are racists, calling them "KKK" and "murderers"? Ignoring pleas for a pause so that two officers who were gunned down on cold blood can be laid to rest in peace?

Fuck you.

[BVS]

Actually there is nothing that proves he was selling loosies at the time, and he wasn't being arrested for that at the time. Yes it's a gray area, but let's not pretend this was a resisting of arrest.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by BVS

Actually there is nothing that proves he was selling loosies at the time, and he wasn't being arrested for that at the time. Yes it's a gray area, but let's not pretend this was a resisting of arrest.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Are you kidding me?
It is impossible to have a real debate with someone who is completely ignorant of facts. Once you can have a logical counter argument with facts, I'll listen. For now, screw you. You bring nothing to the conversation whatsoever besides responding with some kind of stupid one liner.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

Agree or not, that was a pretty snippy response to such a thought-out post from Headache.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

Are you kidding me?
It is impossible to have a real debate with someone who is completely ignorant of facts. Once you can have a logical counter argument with facts, I'll listen. For now, screw you. You bring nothing to the conversation whatsoever besides responding with some kind of stupid one liner.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/12/er...se-cigarettes/


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/12/er...se-cigarettes/


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Don't try to pass off some blogger's opinion as fact. Give me a real news source.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Agree or not, that was a pretty snippy response to such a thought-out post from Headache.

I appreciated Headache's post, I was only responding to the arrest portion. There was nothing snippy about it.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

Are you kidding me?
It is impossible to have a real debate with someone who is completely ignorant of facts. Once you can have a logical counter argument with facts, I'll listen. For now, screw you. You bring nothing to the conversation whatsoever besides responding with some kind of stupid one liner.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Please present me facts then. I don't see anything I've said that has warranted a "screw you", if we have to resort to that, then we have nothing.

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by BVS

Please present me facts then. I don't see anything I've said that has warranted a "screw you", if we have to resort to that, then we have nothing.

I have. Read my post and Headache's posts.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BVS

I appreciated Headache's post, I was only responding to the arrest portion. There was nothing snippy about it.

And I didn't take it as such, so anyone who's decided to argue on my behalf, please stop.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

I have. Read my post and Headache's posts.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Then can you show me where Miranda rights were read and Garner was told he was being arrested?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BVS

Then can you show me where Miranda rights were read and Garner was told he was being arrested?

Miranda rights can be read at anytime after the arrest and before questioning.

It is rarely read before an arrest, other than on Law and Order.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Miranda rights can be read at anytime after the arrest and before questioning.

It is rarely read before an arrest, other than on Law and Order.

My point is where was the arrest? It went from the cop telling him a vague story about selling cigarettes to chokehold. There was no real arrest going on.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

And I didn't take it as such, so anyone who's decided to argue on my behalf, please stop.

I apologize, that wasn't my intention. What I was suggesting was that the one-line responses when people (rarely) argue a somewhat dissenting opinion in FYM do absolutely no good. It's why it's hard to even attempt a conversation in here, because it doesn't seem to matter how much/how little you say, that's the most of a response you're going to get: Something that points out a failing in your comment, rather than some kind of conversation.

Thus, why I took it as "snippy". It was simply disappointing to me to see the same thing happening over and over again over here. So, that was where my comment was coming from. Obviously that took a lot more to explain than one sentence, so that's what I get for trying to post while also having a conversation at work. Definitely was not trying to argue on your behalf, though. It wasn't about you, necessarily, but the subforum as a whole.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Miranda rights can be read at anytime after the arrest and before questioning.

It is rarely read before an arrest, other than on Law and Order.

Finally! Someone who knows what they are talking about!

[brooklynmike]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sEvZBKwvE0k

[DaveC]

I love it when people post links in multiple threads to random YouTube videos with no context


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference