No federal charges for New York policeman in 2014 'I can't breathe' death

[PLizzy]

That actually has nothing to do with my comment.

My comment was that he wasn't innocent.

The reason for him dying is rather straight forward and not at all related to his guilt or innocence.

Yes, it is straight forward.

Police are allowed to use deadly force in even the most minor circumstances, and so people who have a hard-on for violence are attracted to and are finding their way into police work.

There's some political incorrectness for ya'.

 

[JMaximus]

Yes, it is straight forward.

Police are allowed to use deadly force in even the most minor circumstances, and so people who have a hard-on for violence are attracted to and are finding their way into police work.

Police are meant to enforce the laws passed by the people's elected representatives.

If there's a point or severity of crime at which the police should not use some level of enforcement or another, who should decide that point?

 

[PLizzy]

Police are meant to enforce the laws passed by the people's elected representatives.

So? That doesn't mean they have a right to use deadly force whenever they please. All use of their force is subject to review and criminal charges for abuse. Don't like it? Then they shouldn't be police officers.

They answer to us. Their authority comes from us.

If there's a point or severity of crime at which the police should not use some level of enforcement or another, who should decide that point?

If the police can use any manner of force they please, why shouldn't criminals and violent people simply seek at police work for their kicks?

 

[pamak]

Police are meant to enforce the laws passed by the people's elected representatives.

If there's a point or severity of crime at which the police should not use some level of enforcement or another, who should decide that point?

The citizens, I guess, in their different functions as members of grand juries, juries, voters! But in order for those people to have better chances to make a fair decision, the rules of the game must change. For example, police violence should not be the responsibility of the local prosecutors who actually count on the cooperation of the police departments of their jurisdiction and have a conflict of interest. The same thing is about the medical examiners. Those who are contracted or employed by the local law enforcement authorities should not actually participate in the investigation of police violence. Also, today, all cops should have a functioning camera to record everything they do on duty.

Finally, one can still disagree with the majority of voters and argue why he thinks they" got it wrong." When I see cops getting 911 calls to go and help a citizen who they KNOW has a mentally ill person, and then see these cops acting like the mentally ill person is capable of reasoning and make a decision to empty their magazine when the "target" does not obey all their orders, then I do not see how such reaction is right, and the majority's opinion is not going to change my mind.

 

[JMaximus]

They answer to us. Their authority comes from us.

To me it is less about authority and more about responsibility. I don't vote for representatives just so they can pass laws that get broken and ignored consequence free.

I expect the government to enforce my will as much as respect it.

A government that can't or won't maintain order (read: enforce its own laws) is worthless - especially as a vehicle for democratic self determination. As such ineffectiveness becomes more widespread, it approaches the realm of state failure.

If the police can use any manner of force they please, why shouldn't criminals and violent people simply seek at police work for their kicks?

You didn't answer the question...

If there's a point or severity of crime at which the police should not use some level of enforcement or another, who should decide that point?

 

[PLizzy]

To me it is less about authority and more about responsibility. I don't vote for representatives just so they can pass laws that get broken and ignored consequence free.

I expect the government to enforce my will as much as respect it.

A government that can't or won't maintain order (read: enforce its own laws) is worthless - especially as a vehicle for democratic self determination. As such ineffectiveness becomes more widespread, it approaches the realm of state failure.

Nobody said that Garner didn't break the law and that legal penalities weren't merited. What we have always contested is that he was the person who escalated the arrest into a violent dog pile, were he was unable to breath, then left, handcuffed, without medical attention from police to die.

Dog piling and choke holds are deadly, which is why they should ONLY be used against violent suspects, not people who simply moved their hand back from an officer ONCE.

The only thing worse than anarchy is tyranny, which is exactly what you're endorsing.

You didn't answer the question...

What difference does it make it to you? Police work can not be second guessed according to you, and they can use deadly force without any mercy at will because "the law".

Somethings are more important to the law to me - like human life. Sorry to hear you don't feel the same.

 

[Athanasius68]

If William Barr took the autopsy report findings from two separate autopsies performed by New York Medical Examiner plus an independent autopsy which both found that Eric Garland died from compression to his neck, then he might have regained a speck of respectability in my opinion by NOT ruling against the family of Eric Garner in their quest to move forward with a Civil suit.

That isn't the law. The Feds would have to show that the motive in what occurred was racial animus toward Garner.

 

[JMaximus]

The only thing worse than anarchy is tyranny, which is exactly what you're endorsing.

That's outright nonsense. If you think my statements endorse tyranny, you haven't been reading them.

What difference does it make it to you? Police work can not be second guessed according to you, ...

Not something I've ever said and not a position I hold.

... and they can use deadly force without any mercy at will because "the law".

Also not an opinion of mine.

Somethings are more important to the law to me - like human life. Sorry to hear you don't feel the same.

More nonsense.

Are you intending to ever answer the question?

Here it is again:

If there's a point or severity of crime at which the police should not use some level of enforcement or another, who should decide that point?