or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 255

post #3811 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Well. You can have video footage of cops literally choking a man to death and still have bootlickers like ataturk chiming in about how they were in the right.

12 seconds. The cop has arm around the guy's neck for 12 seconds. And he only holds on for maybe 5 seconds after the guy is on the ground. No one was choked to death. The guy said he couldn't breathe because he was so fat and out of shape that he couldn't do it while lying on his stomach with his hands behind his back. Positional asphyxia is a real thing -- look it up. Even then, they rolled him over after about a minute.

I suppose I could rant about the malfeasance of the media in failing to accurately present the incident, but, really, you should be smarter than that. Even after all this time it still amazes me that otherwise intelligent people can swallow these narratives hook, line, and sinker -- when they have access to the video. I guess it helps when it reinforces your ideology, eh?
post #3812 of 6095
nod[1].gif
post #3813 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

nod[1].gif

Yeah, that about sums it up.
post #3814 of 6095

"Because Ataturk gonna Ataturk"

 

Gibonius 

post #3815 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

. I guess it helps when it reinforces your ideology, eh?

"Hands Up, Don't Shoot"
post #3816 of 6095
It's a neat little effort at parsing the death. Was he "choked to death"? Well, probably not. Was his death a direct result of the forcible arrest? Unarguably.

That's how these arguments get ignored. It turns into a discussion about exactly how and why someone was killed, whether that individual action was justified or not. Nobody is left asking "why the fuck are the police forcibly arresting people for selling loose cigarettes?"
post #3817 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It's a neat little effort at parsing the death. Was he "choked to death"? Well, probably not. Was his death a direct result of the forcible arrest? Unarguably.

That's how these arguments get ignored. It turns into a discussion about exactly how and why someone was killed, whether that individual action was justified or not. Nobody is left asking "why the fuck are the police forcibly arresting people for selling loose cigarettes?"

Not only was he "choked to death," there a video of him being "literally choked to death." Remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

nod[1].gif
post #3818 of 6095
The cops in the Eric Garner case are lucky that their actions were reviewed by the Eric Holder DOJ, instead of the SF board.

Same for Darren Wilson.
post #3819 of 6095
So let's look at "but-for" and proximate cause. But-for the take down and handcuffing would he have died at that moment? Was the take down and handcuffing the proximate cause?

No and yes.
post #3820 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Nobody is left asking "why the fuck are the police forcibly arresting people for selling loose cigarettes?"

Oh, and it's because the cigarettes aren't just "loose," they're untaxed. Meaning they were bought in large quantities in a state with low taxes, smuggled into New York, and distributed to big guys like Eric Garner who would loiter in front of stores selling them -- and intimidating the shop keepers and other potential rivals for the market. If that sounds a lot like something Tony Soprano would do, it's because it is (actually, IIRC, it's actually something he did at one point in the show).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So let's look at "but-for" and proximate cause. But-for the take down and handcuffing would he have died at that moment? Was the take down and handcuffing the proximate cause?

No and yes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Proximate cause isn't the same thing as a but-for cause. And whether something is a "proximate" cause isn't a matter of causation, per se, but of legal causation, i.e., legal responsibility. You don't actually talk about "proximate cause" of a death without that context. It'd be meaningless.
post #3821 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Proximate cause isn't the same thing as a but-for cause. And whether something is a "proximate" cause isn't a matter of causation, per se, but of legal causation, i.e., legal responsibility. You don't actually talk about "proximate cause" of a death without that context. It'd be meaningless.

Yeah, it's not the same...that's why I specifically mentioned both?

But-for that take down he would not have died at that instance. Test #1 passed.

Was he in the commission of an act that required that level of force? You're going to say he was and I'm going to say he was not. If he was not those cops were the proximate cause of his death, a death that was unwarranted and IMO requires legal culpability. Again, you will disagree with that.
post #3822 of 6095
I don't think you understood what I was trying to communicate -- proximate cause means legal responsibility. I was asking you for what--money damages? A crime?

In the vast majority of cases where someone is found to have proximately caused an injury in the context of a negligence case, they haven't committed a crime. For example if you fail to yield at an intersection and cause an accident and someone dies, you've proximately caused the death in the tort sense, but it doesn't mean your negligence amounted to a crime (beyond a traffic infraction, I guess). You're certainly not necessarily guilty of negligent homicide or the like (which actually generally requires gross (i.e., extreme) negligence).

To the second part of the comment, you appear to be making some kind of arbitrary value judgment rather than applying a structured legal standard. These are separate questions -- whether the crime justified making an arrest (yes), whether using force was permissible after Garner resisted (again, yes, without question), whether the force actually used was reasonable (there's room for discussion here, but the answer is almost certainly yes), whether the police were negligent/grossly negligent/whatever in restraining Garner in a way that caused him respiratory distress (it's arguable, but they seem to have responded pretty quickly to his complaints, under the circumstances). In the worst light, their conduct is hardly egregious. It's just a case of some cops using reasonable force against a person who was too fragile to take it and not realizing it in time.
post #3823 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


distributed to big guys like Eric Garner who would loiter in front of stores selling them -- and intimidating the shop keepers and other potential rivals for the market. If that sounds a lot like something Tony Soprano would do, it's because it is (actually, IIRC, it's actually something he did at one point in the show).
 

 

Intimidating shopkeepers or other potential rivals?  laugh3-smiley.gif?1292867631laugh3-smiley.gif?1292867631laugh3-smiley.gif?1292867631 Have you ever BEEN to New York City or met an actual New Yorker?  

 

FYI: People actively look to buy loosies.  Hell I would say 3/4 of the bodegas sell loosies inside the store.  And 9/10th of them will sell you any and everything in the store cheaper than listed price AND won't charge tax provided that you pay cash

 

 

"shopkeepers" laugh2-smiley.gif?1292867631 

post #3824 of 6095
What's wrong with "shopkeepers?"

Store owners? Merchants? Tenants? Vendors?
post #3825 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

What's wrong with "shopkeepers?"

 

 

Technically it is correct but anyone who has lived in NYC or spent any serious amount of time in the city outside of the tourist traps would laugh at Ataturk's scenario and characterization.  They just do not reflect reality.  The idea that someone can stand in front of a store and corner the loosie market or attempt to strongarm anyone into buying loosies is ridiculous.  People stand in front of bodegas all hours of the day and night.  It's just things that some people do.  No one is intimidated, neither "shopkeepers" nor customers

 

But what do I know?  I only lived there for 20 years.  Maybe things have changed since I left

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?