Eric Garner Had His Hands Up Too!

[napkinz]

[misterhighwasted]

1. Yes he did. Did the prosecutor do his job & point this out?

Bet not

[napkinz]

2. he was clearly surrendering/submitting ... what part of surrendering/submitting don't the

police understand???

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Obviously, when you're a big Black man, it won't help you.

This is heartbreaking.

[atreides1]

7. The Prosecutor did his job

His job was to make sure that the officer wasn't indicted, so he did do his job!

Just as he'll make sure to get an indictment for the next non-cop who gets arrested...like the guy who filmed the altercation involving Mr. Garner!

[BlueCaliDem]

19. Sad but true. So can we now dispense with the myth that prosecutors prosecute cops, right?

Because they don't.

They play taxpayer-funded defense attorneys for them who, also, get paid by taxpayer dollars. And we, the non-cop taxpayer, pays these corrupt "public servants" to harm us on every level - including losing our civil rights.

When they say they protect and serve, they obviously mean their own. We're just good sheep who have to keep our mouths shut and to make sure that they get the best benefits, best pensions, best bonuses, and 80-85% of a drug haul via the "civil asset forfeiture" law.

The ACLU is, correctly, against this.

In many jurisdictions, the money can go to pay for salaries, advanced equipment and other perks. When salaries and perks are on the line, officers have a strong incentive to increase the seizures, as evidenced by an increase in the regularity and size of such seizures in recent years.

Asset forfeiture practices often go hand-in-hand with racial profiling and disproportionately impact low-income African-American or Hispanic people who the police decide look suspicious and for whom the arcane process of trying to get one’s property back is an expensive challenge. ACLU believes that such routine “civil asset forfeiture” puts our civil liberties and property rights under assault, and calls for reform of state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws.
https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture

That's why they look openly bored when they have to come to your home to report a theft or something like that. That doesn't make them any money so they're not interested - and it always shows.

So when President Clinton advocated for more police officers, and my not knowing that there even was such a thing as "civil asset forfeiture", I was already wondering...why? Why on Earth should that be a good thing for us non-cops??

[elleng]

3. He was resisting arrest,

first complained for a few minutes about being hassled by the cops repeatedly, said 'Don't touch me.' He might have had to be subdued but not, clearly, in the way he was: Subdued and killed. :sad

[napkinz]

6. he threw his hands up ... is this not a universal gesture?

nt

[elleng]

8. Have to look at the video again,

but generally he was not cooperating, he was complaining and resisting and gesticulating, at which point they decided to take him down, came at him from the back.

Yes, it's a universal gesture, but I'm not sure it was so intended at this time.

[Live and Learn]

22. Not cooperating is not the same as resisting arrest.

They didn't even give him time to contemplate that he was actually being arrested. And who among us would believe that they would arrest us for selling single cigarettes?

It is an instinctive reaction to say 'don't touch me' when grabbed unexpectedly. Are we to automatically lay down on the ground and put our hands behind our back when we see an officer?

To hell with people making excuses for police brutality and murder.

[BubbaFett]

24. Actually not cooperating IS the same as resisting arrest

You must be 100% compliant and docile when interacting with police. You don't get your day in court curbside with today's militaristic police. They will treat most interactions as felony arrests.

Manic gesticulation, raising your voice, and moving around will increase the threat level YOU create in the officer's mind.

Today's modern militaristic police are not there to counsel you, give you your space, or let you mentally process your arrest before they do their job.

[Travis_0004]

26. He had been arrested several times in the past for selling ciggerettes

So I dont think getting arrested again should have been a suprise.

[SalviaBlue]

34. I'll bet getting killed was.

[jberryhill]

27. He was complaining, but I don't see him resisting

He's not being unreasonable either.

Yes, he is verbally expressing his annoyance at being shaken down, but I can't figure out why they feel the need to go horizontal with him in the first place.

[sir pball]

13. And passively refusing to cooperate deserves a takedown why exactly?

Even if he were healthy, his "resisting" is a passive refusal to follow orders, not active combativeness...I really can't come up with any justification for a physical takedown, be it a hold, taser or pepper spray. Though a threat with the latter just might have worked wonders - "cuffs, or we spritz you!"

[elleng]

14. I agree there's no justification.

He wasn't passively refusing to cooperate, and the cops were not encouraging passivity. They must have been absent from cop school the day the lesson on toning things down was given.

[sir pball]

15. By "passive" I mean he wasn't being combative.

He wasn't quietly standing, no, but at worst he swatted hands away. I'm not arguing with you, just saying he barely even met the bar of "resisting" in any book, let alone being an uncooperative combative suspect who could be physically wrestled down.

[elleng]

17. He was trying to get away, actually,

maybe not really 'resisting.'

[subterranean]

18. Tried to get away?

I watched the video repeatedly, and at no point did he attempt to run away.
All he did was wave the cops off when they tried to grab his arms.

[KMOD]

16. The bigger question is of course,

why should he have even been detained for selling cigarettes.

That is what is crazy for me.

I believe in most circumstances people should cooperate with police and fight them later in court.

But this particular situation should have never even happened. It's mindless, senseless, and ridiculous.

[napkinz]

20. edit

Last edited Thu Dec 4, 2014, 09:34 AM - Edit history (1)

oops ... duplicate post

[napkinz]

21. "situation should have never even happened"

we seem to be having a plethora of these "situations" in this country ... and it's been going on for YEARS







when is enough enough?

it's just sickening

[Live and Learn]

23. When 5 officers are deployed to arrest someone for selling 'loosies'

it seems to me we have too many officers. I will never vote another penny for police protection. We might as well just pay the mob for protection since the results seem quite similar.

[napkinz]

30. arresting someone for selling loosies ...

doesn't that go back to the Giuliani “broken window” theory of government?

I thought the new mayor parted from that approach.

[brooklynite]

32. No, he cracked down on stop and frisk without cause...

I'm not aware of any constraints on arrests for laws on the books with the exception of marijuana possession.

[Lee-Lee]

25. He was resisting and being belligerent

But in this case it should have been handled differently.

Textbook time for a taser, not a jump to hands-on.

[justiceischeap]

33. I think you need to look up the definition of belligerent

bel·lig·er·ent
hostile and aggressive

He was being neither hostile nor aggressive. He was passionately stating he'd done nothing wrong but that does not make him hostile nor aggressive.

[Takket]

4. local prosecutors are obviously too scared to send a cop to prison.

a special federal prosecutor should handle all cases involving police from now on. this needs to be a new law. I'm convinced prosecutors think the citizens are going to demand they be tossed out of office if they send a cop to prison so they basically go into these grand juries as defense attorneys. the justice system is so severely compromised right now that for the police murder is now legal.

[napkinz]

5. "for the police murder is now legal"

so much for no person is above the law

[morningfog]

9. Can't stop a fucking pig from killing a black man

[napkinz]

11. law enforcement had no problem with this guy ... who was aiming at them!

imagine if he were an African-American selling a cigarette

[sir pball]

12. I always get a chuckle out of that picture...that rifle has no sights!

Or at least no deployed sights. I'm not entirely familiar with AKs, but it looks like the rear sight is folded down, and there's definitely no scope mounted.

Then again, given how laughably inaccurate they are, I'm not sure sights would help...at any rate that guy isn't nearly the threat he's made out to be. Not that the Bundy crew as a whole isn't, just this one yahoo.

[chrisa]

36. I always thought it was a cheesy canned photo-op.

Guy probably got the gun out, ran over and laid down, and then ran away 5 seconds later after the pictures were snapped. Also, look how thin the gaps on the concrete walls - about the size of the muzzle. Total bullshit.

[jberryhill]

28. what law enforcement saw this guy?

The ones he is aiming at can't see him, so what makes you say that law enforcement had no problem with him?

[napkinz]

29. they've all seen it by now ... have they arrested him?

nt

[jberryhill]

31. I'm sure they beat the heck out of that photograph when they apprehended it

[napkinz]

39. ...

[Ykcutnek]

35. Good point.

Fuck the Bundy Ranch defenders.

Never thought I'd cross paths with them on this site.

[napkinz]

38. the hypocrisy ...

[napkinz]

41. ...

[LittleBlue]

37. All over some smokes

[napkinz]

40. ...