[P1]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Very obvious.

This is coming from a black man who's brother is in a classified position within the US capital police and a life long black friend who is S.W.A.T

Even when I state facts and cite my sources, it's still doesn't get through. I can tell when to it becomes a pointless discussion. There are a few members on here that seem to be somewhat open minded and not blinded by their myopic political agenda.

I come from a country where it seems that the justice system sides with the criminals, and the police often turn a blind eye or afraid to take action when it's actually needed. Read: they would rather write you a ticket for speeding vs. putting Eastern European and North African criminals behind bars. No one is afraid of the police, and thus get little respect from the criminals or ordinary citizens. You could shuffle with a cop and get away with it. You can swear at them and get away with it. They are too tolerant, and the criminals take full advantage of it.

Now look at American cops. I wish we had them in Europe. When I get pulled over, does my heart rate increase? It sure does. Are they intimidating? Without a doubt. But they are here to keep everyone in line, and I applaud them for dealing with the scum they have to deal with on a daily basis. Not everything goes right all the time, and since America is still dealing with racial issues (the rest of the world is too, I'm not saying this is unique) perhaps we should only have black cops patrolling predominantly black neighborhoods. Or perhaps just like only female TSA officers can pat down females, perhaps only white cops and arrest white people and black cops needs to arrest black people. Because clearly, that's what it's about. You cannot tell me the issue would be as big if Officer Wilson would have been black, and the same for the Eric Garner case.

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Completely false and inflamatory.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the autopsy report says otherwise.

Maybe you don't believe the autopsy report? Maybe you don't believe it's possible for a healthy person to actually die from a choke hold? Let alone an unhealthy person.

I have to take a break from this discussion, shit is amazing what I'm reading. Off to get lunch...

[P1]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

We really have to clarify "resisting arrest" before we keep using it as the foundation of arguments.

Watch the video, one more time, and see that he did not: run, hide or fight with officers. I will agree that he was not 100% compliant, but he did stay in his spot, put his arms up and say "don't touch me".

Suspects that run from cops deserve to get slammed on the ground when they're caught, suspects that stay still and say don't touch me, do not deserve to be choked. IMO

If the punishment fits the crime...

I saw the video just like everyone else did. That boy was hostile and given his demeanor, he likely wasn't just going to give in without resisting. Saying "don't touch me" tells a cop "I don't want to be arrested". If he had just remained calm and complied, it would have taken another turn. Am I saying that a deadly choke hold was the right move to arrest him? I am not.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by m3ray

No one is debating this point. Most reasonable people would have just complied and been cuffed. What he's saying, is not complying enough of a reason for the cop to use deadly force? I say no and make no mistake a choke hold like this is deadly force.

Was it overt? Yeah, probably so. Do I feel his intention was to put him out of his life? Not at all.

Not directly comparable but;
Have you ever been in a physical fight in your life? Or a physical struggle for that matter? I've been in situations where I was relentless for my own safety, but I didn't really know to what extent until after everything was finished. I've put a guy in a chokehold and knocked him unconscious, but I didn't even mean to take it that far, it was an accident.

[m3ray]

Originally Posted by Billup

Was it overt? Yeah, probably so. Do I feel his intention was to put him out of his life? Not at all.

Not directly comparable but;
Have you ever been in a physical fight in your life? Or a physical struggle for that matter? I've been in situations where I was relentless for my own safety, but I didn't really know to what extent until after everything was finished. I've put a guy in a chokehold and knocked him unconscious, but I didn't even mean to take it that far, it was an accident.

An accident that causes someone's death is manslaughter. And that's what he should have been indicted for.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by m3ray

An accident that causes someone's death is manslaughter. And that's what he should have been indicted for.

An accident that could have been avoided, had he handled the matter like a fucking civilized adult and not some delinquent.


So no. He shouldn't have. His ruling was correct. I've seen guys selling crack, get caught by a cop, and don't bat an eyelash and take what they have coming.

Make a situation hostile? You need to accept the possible outcomes. That's life man. Treat others as YOU would like to be treated. Fucking elementary shit.


Manslaughter is a death by an unfortunate event, caused by insignificant circumstances. My buddy was out on his jet boat in Lake Saint Claire. He flipped it. His buddy died, he lived. He was charged with manslaughter and served jail time. THAT is the definition of manslaughter.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

I was waiting for this question...

Have you seen the actual autopsy report from the Mike Brown case? If so, please share, because I haven't seen it either.

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Not to sound like a broken record, but the autopsy report says otherwise.

Wait, so have you seen it or not?

I'm confused...

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

I was waiting for this question...

Have you seen the actual autopsy report from the Mike Brown case? If so, please share, because I haven't seen it either.

My access to sources of information is the exact same as your sources of information. Until one of us, physically have the report that shows Mike Brown was shot from the front and not the back or Eric Garner was choked to death as opposed to another cause, we both can only draw conclusions on the numerous corroborated reports.

In regards to me posting the definition of homicide, I did post a question to make sure I was understanding the decision of no indictment. Is a man selling cigarettes illegally a justifiable case to be killed for "resisting" arrest?

I'm well aware that there are scenarios in which a homicide is justifiable, but in this case with Mr. Garner it is not.

Originally Posted by Templar

Wait, so have you seen it or not?

I'm confused...

Templar, I'm surprised. Here we have a classic example of how words are twisted to support an argument. Thankfully, I'm able to quote myself so you can see exactly what I said without omitting information.

My quote from earlier shows that neither of us have seen the actual autopsy reports for either case. So, just as he drew his conclusion based on what the reported forensic evidence suggested is the exact same thing I'm doing.

None of us, I repeat, none of us have seen any actual reports. The basis of ALL of our arguments are structured by either what a forensic report or medical report suggest. In these two cases, that's exactly what was done.

If you want to piece a statement together against me, at least do it properly.

Still confused?

[PINeely]

They released all of the documents from the Mike Brown case already. The autopsy report came out in October:
http://www.stltoday.com/online/pdf-a...a4bcf6878.html

The rest of the docs are here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...case.html?_r=0

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by P1et

Now look at American cops. I wish we had them in Europe. When I get pulled over, does my heart rate increase? It sure does. Are they intimidating? Without a doubt. But they are here to keep everyone in line, and I applaud them for dealing with the scum they have to deal with on a daily basis. Not everything goes right all the time, and since America is still dealing with racial issues (the rest of the world is too, I'm not saying this is unique) perhaps we should only have black cops patrolling predominantly black neighborhoods. Or perhaps just like only female TSA officers can pat down females, perhaps only white cops and arrest white people and black cops needs to arrest black people. Because clearly, that's what it's about. You cannot tell me the issue would be as big if Officer Wilson would have been black, and the same for the Eric Garner case.

Your ideas, although racist and would never fly, at least suggest a solution to a problem that seems to be never ending. I can appreciate the effort.

You are correct and we've heard that argument several times. White on white crime, black on black crime, Hispanic on Hispanic crime, are not newsworthy, but specifically white on black crime makes the news.

It's unfortunate, but it's what happens. I believe it's still newsworthy (Not saying I agree with it) because like another member stated, the somewhat recent negative history between the two races in America.

Originally Posted by P1et

I saw the video just like everyone else did. That boy was hostile and given his demeanor, he likely wasn't just going to give in without resisting. Saying "don't touch me" tells a cop "I don't want to be arrested". If he had just remained calm and complied, it would have taken another turn. Am I saying that a deadly choke hold was the right move to arrest him? I am not.

Boy? He was 43 years old...

I agree with your last statement.

Originally Posted by Billup

Was it overt? Yeah, probably so. Do I feel his intention was to put him out of his life? Not at all.

Not directly comparable but;
Have you ever been in a physical fight in your life? Or a physical struggle for that matter? I've been in situations where I was relentless for my own safety, but I didn't really know to what extent until after everything was finished. I've put a guy in a chokehold and knocked him unconscious, but I didn't even mean to take it that far, it was an accident.

Makes it a moot point.

[F1Venom]

I'm from St. Louis and I knew that Officer Wilson was innocent from the beginning. The jury ruled correctly.

I heard about this NYC story back when it happened during the summer and I thought the cops would've all been fired and hopefully even jailed. Not indicting the officer who killed the guy is shocking.

[MrPrena]

Originally Posted by m3ray

The shit could hit the fan in NYC if they let this cop off.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/02/indictm...ome-wednesday/

Originally Posted by F1Venom

That's a case where I hope the cops get locked up.

This is why respiratory (air) choke are not usually allowed to use.
Vascular (blood) chokes are usually little safer, but much harder to put the subjects on restraint.

It looks like the officers might have tried to vascular choke (lateral vascular neck restraint ), but the subject kept moving around too much that even Andre the Giant cannot perform a proper choke hold on this guy.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Your ideas, although racist and would never fly

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Boy? He was 43 years old...

OMG..

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by grimlock

OMG..

Haha, you'd think I'm making this stuff up.

I can only imagine what some members are saying about this topic behind those keyboards.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Haha, you'd think I'm making this stuff up.

I can only imagine what some members are saying about this topic behind those keyboards.

probably we're projecting, being overly sensitive etc.

that is why I occasionally state in no uncertain terms the size of my member, with my hands on my hips

[m3ray]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/...sion-protests/

It's started.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Templar, I'm surprised. Here we have a classic example of how words are twisted to support an argument. Thankfully, I'm able to quote myself so you can see exactly what I said without omitting information.

My quote from earlier shows that neither of us have seen the actual autopsy reports for either case. So, just as he drew his conclusion based on what the reported forensic evidence suggested is the exact same thing I'm doing.

None of us, I repeat, none of us have seen any actual reports. The basis of ALL of our arguments are structured by either what a forensic report or medical report suggest. In these two cases, that's exactly what was done.

If you want to piece a statement together against me, at least do it properly.

Still confused?

Calm down, I was asking a legitimate question.

You were actually talking about two different incidents, and I didn't catch it. I will admit when I don't catch something, but I'm not going to get much into this because honestly the whole back and forth is tiring. None of you people are going to change your minds about anything, no matter what evidence is shown or not shown. Plenty of assumptions are being made on both sides.

Besides, you know I'm not like that. At least not on stuff like this. And I'm too busy reporting ban evaders!

[pukicabuki]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Your ideas, although racist

You probably shouldn't use the term "racist" until you actually understand what it means. His ideas may be discriminatory or prejudicial but they aren't racist. There is no way you could infer racism from what he wrote if you're using the term properly.

People really need to stop using that word incorrectly. A big part of the problem in racial issues is that people jump to using the term "racist" far too quickly and incorrectly. It is a far more inflammatory term that what is typically appropriate.

[F1Venom]

There's a big IRS scandal unfolding right now, but we'll talk about this new verdict. There's also twenty million illegals given amnesty that will take over black peoples jobs while they're out protesting. But that's just me, an observer.

[ASAP]

rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists
1.
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
"he was exposed as a racist"
(racially) discriminatory, racialist, prejudiced, bigoted
"a racist society"
adjective
noun: racist; plural noun: racists; adjective: racist
1.
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"

Everyone please understand the meaning.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by m3ray

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/...sion-protests/

It's started.

Jesus Christ the comments on that article.

[Uber V8]

Originally Posted by Templar

Calm down, I was asking a legitimate question.

You were actually talking about two different incidents, and I didn't catch it. I will admit when I don't catch something, but I'm not going to get much into this because honestly the whole back and forth is tiring. None of you people are going to change your minds about anything, no matter what evidence is shown or not shown. Plenty of assumptions are being made on both sides.

Besides, you know I'm not like that. At least not on stuff like this. And I'm too busy reporting ban evaders!

Fair enough. I didn't think you were which is why I said I was surprised.

Now, carry on catching those ban evaders haha.

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

You probably shouldn't use the term "racist" until you actually understand what it means. His ideas may be discriminatory or prejudicial but they aren't racist. There is no way you could infer racism from what he wrote if you're using the term properly.

People really need to stop using that word incorrectly. A big part of the problem in racial issues is that people jump to using the term "racist" far too quickly and incorrectly. It is a far more inflammatory term that what is typically appropriate.

My apologies sir.