• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Daniel Pantaleo officer who killed Eric Garner is fired from the NYPD

apdst said:
Why was Garner being arrested?
Click to expand...

Let's say he's a serial killer. Ate babies. Does that justify a police officer doing whatever they want, with no consequences? The law stops applying to the cops if they really, really think this is a really, really bad perpetrator?

What was Garner convicted of?
 
Deuce said:
Let's say he's a serial killer. Ate babies. Does that justify a police officer doing whatever they want, with no consequences? The law stops applying to the cops if they really, really think this is a really, really bad perpetrator?

What was Garner convicted of?
Click to expand...

Let's say he was kicking your ass. Would you want the cops to haul his ass off of you, or sit back and watch?
 
apdst said:
Let's say he was kicking your ass. Would you want the cops to haul his ass off of you, or sit back and watch?
Click to expand...

Oh, so you think it's acceptable for the cop to murder us both?
 
It really does amaze me the way small-government conservatives who make a point of being distrustful of government authority (and law enforcement generally BUT ONLY if it is investigating a right-winger, like you-know-who) seem to only just barely stop themselves from saying that cops should be allowed to do what ever they want to suspects, no matter how minor the crime they are suspected of.

(Interestingly, the whole "suspect" & presumption of innocence thing vanishes when it's someone like Garner at issue. Then the "suspect" who is presumed innocent becomes a thug who deserves any beating he might receive if he does anything short of kow-towing on the spot to the cop).

Think of how many times you've seen one spout off with "he shouldn't have resisted" or "he shouldn't have been rude to the officer" has been uttered, as if those ideas have any place in assessing whether a government agent abused his power against a citizen.




Cops have the power of life and death over citizens. They should be held to a higher standard because of this, not to a lower standard because the job they chose can be characterized as 'dangerous.'
 
apdst said:
Your defeat is glaring. :lamo
Click to expand...

Defeat in what?

You support oppressive governments and the killing of people trying to sell legal products because the government did not get their cut. I fully understand your position on governmental control and that people need to follow orders no matter what from the government or its agents.
 
Mr Person said:
It really does amaze me the way small-government conservatives who make a point of being distrustful of government authority (and law enforcement generally BUT ONLY if it is investigating a right-winger, like you-know-who) seem to only just barely stop themselves from saying that cops should be allowed to do what ever they want to suspects, no matter how minor the crime they are suspected of.

(Interestingly, the whole "suspect" & presumption of innocence thing vanishes when it's someone like Garner at issue. Then the "suspect" who is presumed innocent becomes a thug who deserves any beating he might receive if he does anything short of kow-towing on the spot to the cop).

Think of how many times you've seen one spout off with "he shouldn't have resisted" or "he shouldn't have been rude to the officer" has been uttered, as if those ideas have any place in assessing whether a government agent abused his power against a citizen.




Cops have the power of life and death over citizens. They should be held to a higher standard because of this, not to a lower standard because they job they chose can be characterized as 'dangerous.'
Click to expand...

It's because they're actually fascists. They aren't concerned with fascism in the police because that's on their side.
 
Gaius46 said:
First off this wasn’t some dangerous felon. His crime was essentially not giving the city it’s pound of flesh in the form of cigarette taxes.

But that’s beside the point. Pantaleo was found to have violated department regulations. If you didn’t follow your employers rules would you expect to keep your job? Especially if your not following the rules got someone killed who didn’t need to be killed?
Click to expand...

How do you know he wasn't a dangerous felon? Did the police know he wasn't dangerous? They were trying to handcuff him so they could pat him down to see if he had a knife or gun. He refused to comply. What if he had a gun or knife and killed a police officer? Would you be upset for the officer's death as you are the criminal's death? The reason he the officer was found not guilty and wasn't prosecuted was because of this possibility. All the officer had to do in a court of law was to say he believed he may have had a weapon and needed to be taken down from behind. Not guilty.

When you watch the video of the choke hold, it starts off as not a choke hold that was a violation. The choke hold that was in violation was when they went to the ground and the hold was applied for only a couple of seconds, not long enough to cause the criminal to pass out. The criminal died because of his health issues such as a heart condition and the excitement got to him. Now, was that choke hold necessary while on the ground? Had the other officers jumped on the guy and held him down, they would have been able to cuff him. So, since the other officers were basically worthless for that, he took it upon himself to subdue the criminal. And, again, he didn't know if the guy had a weapon at that time. The police are being really played here as bad people and don't have the backing of their bosses. No wonder many police agencies are having a difficult time getting new officers to sign up. I wouldn't.
 
Deuce said:
It's because they're actually fascists. They aren't concerned with fascism in the police because that's on their side.
Click to expand...

Next time someone is burglarizing your home, stealing your car, trying to rape you or your children, call a criminal.
 
Cougarbear said:
Next time someone is burglarizing your home, stealing your car, trying to rape you or your children, call a criminal.
Click to expand...

That's your justification for police brutality? Murder by police? Excessive force? Racial bias? Everything is excused because they're cops?
 
Cougarbear said:
The choke hold that was in violation was when they went to the ground and the hold was applied for only a couple of seconds, not long enough to cause the criminal to pass out. The criminal died because of his health issues such as a heart condition and the excitement got to him.
Click to expand...

Now guess why the choke hold is a violation of policy?

As your direct answers are few and far between, I'll provide it. Because it has known, potentially deadly outcomes.

If he had let him up or if he had gotten up, there were still officers on hand to stop him.
 
Cougarbear said:
Next time someone is burglarizing your home, stealing your car, trying to rape you or your children, call a criminal.
Click to expand...

So cops violating policy is ok to you right?
 
Cougarbear said:
Next time someone is burglarizing your home, stealing your car, trying to rape you or your children, call a criminal.
Click to expand...

I thought that is why w e should all have guns?
 
Mr Person said:
It really does amaze me the way small-government conservatives who make a point of being distrustful of government authority (and law enforcement generally BUT ONLY if it is investigating a right-winger, like you-know-who) seem to only just barely stop themselves from saying that cops should be allowed to do what ever they want to suspects, no matter how minor the crime they are suspected of.

(Interestingly, the whole "suspect" & presumption of innocence thing vanishes when it's someone like Garner at issue. Then the "suspect" who is presumed innocent becomes a thug who deserves any beating he might receive if he does anything short of kow-towing on the spot to the cop).

Think of how many times you've seen one spout off with "he shouldn't have resisted" or "he shouldn't have been rude to the officer" has been uttered, as if those ideas have any place in assessing whether a government agent abused his power against a citizen.




Cops have the power of life and death over citizens. They should be held to a higher standard because of this, not to a lower standard because the job they chose can be characterized as 'dangerous.'
Click to expand...

Thank you. I was going to say much the same thing but you beat me to it and did a better job.
 
Cougarbear said:
How do you know he wasn't a dangerous felon? Did the police know he wasn't dangerous? They were trying to handcuff him so they could pat him down to see if he had a knife or gun. He refused to comply. What if he had a gun or knife and killed a police officer? Would you be upset for the officer's death as you are the criminal's death? The reason he the officer was found not guilty and wasn't prosecuted was because of this possibility. All the officer had to do in a court of law was to say he believed he may have had a weapon and needed to be taken down from behind. Not guilty.

When you watch the video of the choke hold, it starts off as not a choke hold that was a violation. The choke hold that was in violation was when they went to the ground and the hold was applied for only a couple of seconds, not long enough to cause the criminal to pass out. The criminal died because of his health issues such as a heart condition and the excitement got to him. Now, was that choke hold necessary while on the ground? Had the other officers jumped on the guy and held him down, they would have been able to cuff him. So, since the other officers were basically worthless for that, he took it upon himself to subdue the criminal. And, again, he didn't know if the guy had a weapon at that time. The police are being really played here as bad people and don't have the backing of their bosses. No wonder many police agencies are having a difficult time getting new officers to sign up. I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

The officers actions directly led to the death of a citizen - not a criminal he doesn’t become one until found guilty or do you not believe in the presumption of innocence?

The man was on the ground and an administrative proceeding, which I’ll reiterate was run by a department that seldom fires officers, found he acted recklessly. That’s all that matters. The police are not free to use any level of force simply to subdue someone.

As to would I feel badly if the cop had died? I feel badly whenever someone dies who didn’t need to. I don’t care whether they have a badge or not. Eric Garner didn’t need to die.
 
Praxas said:
So cops violating policy is ok to you right?
Click to expand...

Give the history of this case - it’s impossible to say whether he really violated policy or he’s just being sacrificed on the altar of the social justice movement.
 
Napoleon said:
Give the history of this case - it’s impossible to say whether he really violated policy or he’s just being sacrificed on the altar of the social justice movement.
Click to expand...

?? They have the choke hold on video and the policy is to not use a choke hold.

Perhaps I am remembering the facts incorrectly? It did take 5 yrs to fire him.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Defeat in what?

You support oppressive governments and the killing of people trying to sell legal products because the government did not get their cut. I fully understand your position on governmental control and that people need to follow orders no matter what from the government or its agents.
Click to expand...

You all start slinging insults the second your argument falls to pieces...lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom