What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Coward fatally ambushes 2 NYPD, commits suicide (1 Viewer)

Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
“Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny,” writes Newsmax’s Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report."

"Meyers notes that at the time of Garner’s death, he was “out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.”

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.

The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.

The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.
Yep...I have no problem with someone locking his dumb @zz up for continuing to sell loosies and continuing to break laws.

I have a REAL problem with an officer using any tactics that are deemed ILLEGAL. The choke is illegal and the very moment the officer uses it (not in self defense)...then he is liable and so is the City.

I don't get what happened to the word illegal. It's like it means nothing anymore. Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Who cares what it is...it's illegal. The cop used an illegal tactic. Period.

Illegals shouldn't be getting licenses in California...hello, they are ILLEGAL. Round them up and ship them back or make them legal...but don't skirt the issue and legitimize illegal activities by just giving up and giving them licenses.

Someone seriously needs to start re-teaching America what the term illegal means...

On another note...back to that guy dancing behind cops in NY. What he did was dumb but should've been diffused by the cop getting out of the van who knew exactly what he was doing. Secondly...cops should not be able to just put their hands on you. If I were to put my hands on someone and push them up against a car...it's assault. If I were to shove you to the ground...it's again, assault. Without any real charge...there's no reason a cop should be able to put his hands on you. NYPD cops are a bit too damned handsy in my opinion. And cussing out this guy from jumpstreet is also highly unprofessional. How is that OK for a civil servant to act? To cuss you out, cuss at you while questioning you and call you derogatory names? It's antagonistic and unprofessional. If any other civil servant were to act in this manner...they'd be written up. You can find out what this guy is doing and what his motivations are without calling him names and cussing at him...much less, throwing him to the ground. Unless you have probable cause...you have no reason to search his person...and you definitely shouldn't be pushing and shoving citizens.

 
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.
Hear what you're saying, but Garner (by resisting) made sure it was going to get physical. Cops had to get a huge man under control so they could cuff him. Let's say they take him down with an arm bar instead of going for the neck. It's possible the end result for Garner is (unfortunately) the same. How much (if at all) differently would people view the incident then?
 
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.
Yep...I have no problem with someone locking his dumb @zz up for continuing to sell loosies and continuing to break laws.

I have a REAL problem with an officer using any tactics that are deemed ILLEGAL. The choke is illegal and the very moment the officer uses it (not in self defense)...then he is liable and so is the City.

I don't get what happened to the word illegal. It's like it means nothing anymore. Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Who cares what it is...it's illegal. The cop used an illegal tactic. Period.

Illegals shouldn't be getting licenses in California...hello, they are ILLEGAL. Round them up and ship them back or make them legal...but don't skirt the issue and legitimize illegal activities by just giving up and giving them licenses.

Someone seriously needs to start re-teaching America what the term illegal means...

On another note...back to that guy dancing behind cops in NY. What he did was dumb but should've been diffused by the cop getting out of the van who knew exactly what he was doing. Secondly...cops should not be able to just put their hands on you. If I were to put my hands on someone and push them up against a car...it's assault. If I were to shove you to the ground...it's again, assault. Without any real charge...there's no reason a cop should be able to put his hands on you. NYPD cops are a bit too damned handsy in my opinion. And cussing out this guy from jumpstreet is also highly unprofessional. How is that OK for a civil servant to act? To cuss you out, cuss at you while questioning you and call you derogatory names? It's antagonistic and unprofessional. If any other civil servant were to act in this manner...they'd be written up. You can find out what this guy is doing and what his motivations are without calling him names and cussing at him...much less, throwing him to the ground. Unless you have probable cause...you have no reason to search his person...and you definitely shouldn't be pushing and shoving citizens.
I agree with much of what you say (particularly about illegal) but I think you're assuming too much with the bolded and also putting too much of the responsibility on the cops and not nearly enough on dancing guy. He's the one who goes out of his way to get a reaction out of people based on them not knowing what the heck he's doing behind them. To come up behind on duty cops (shortly after two cops were killed in am ambush attack) and do something strange like that is galacticly stupid. If he's that sensitive that he can't take some harsh language, perhaps he should not be in the business of startling people for laughs. As far as the cop shoving him, I agree he shouldn't have done that but I have watched it several times and the cop's torso doesn't move. It's all arms. Bok has the agility and balance of a dancer but hits the deck that easy from a nothing, all arms shove? Come on. I think he'll live to dance another day :rollseyes:
 
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.
Hear what you're saying, but Garner (by resisting) made sure it was going to get physical. Cops had to get a huge man under control so they could cuff him. Let's say they take him down with an arm bar instead of going for the neck. It's possible the end result for Garner is (unfortunately) the same. How much (if at all) differently would people view the incident then?
I'd view it completely differently if they did an arm bar to take him down...even if they broke his arm. If he still died by asthma attack from that...well, that sucks. But then I'd hold the police liable for letting the man just lie there and die without even trying to save the man's life.

 
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.
Yep...I have no problem with someone locking his dumb @zz up for continuing to sell loosies and continuing to break laws.

I have a REAL problem with an officer using any tactics that are deemed ILLEGAL. The choke is illegal and the very moment the officer uses it (not in self defense)...then he is liable and so is the City.

I don't get what happened to the word illegal. It's like it means nothing anymore. Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Who cares what it is...it's illegal. The cop used an illegal tactic. Period.

Illegals shouldn't be getting licenses in California...hello, they are ILLEGAL. Round them up and ship them back or make them legal...but don't skirt the issue and legitimize illegal activities by just giving up and giving them licenses.

Someone seriously needs to start re-teaching America what the term illegal means...

On another note...back to that guy dancing behind cops in NY. What he did was dumb but should've been diffused by the cop getting out of the van who knew exactly what he was doing. Secondly...cops should not be able to just put their hands on you. If I were to put my hands on someone and push them up against a car...it's assault. If I were to shove you to the ground...it's again, assault. Without any real charge...there's no reason a cop should be able to put his hands on you. NYPD cops are a bit too damned handsy in my opinion. And cussing out this guy from jumpstreet is also highly unprofessional. How is that OK for a civil servant to act? To cuss you out, cuss at you while questioning you and call you derogatory names? It's antagonistic and unprofessional. If any other civil servant were to act in this manner...they'd be written up. You can find out what this guy is doing and what his motivations are without calling him names and cussing at him...much less, throwing him to the ground. Unless you have probable cause...you have no reason to search his person...and you definitely shouldn't be pushing and shoving citizens.
I agree with much of what you say (particularly about illegal) but I think you're assuming too much with the bolded and also putting too much of the responsibility on the cops and not nearly enough on dancing guy. He's the one who goes out of his way to get a reaction out of people based on them not knowing what the heck he's doing behind them. To come up behind on duty cops (shortly after two cops were killed in am ambush attack) and do something strange like that is galacticly stupid. If he's that sensitive that he can't take some harsh language, perhaps he should not be in the business of startling people for laughs. As far as the cop shoving him, I agree he shouldn't have done that but I have watched it several times and the cop's torso doesn't move. It's all arms. Bok has the agility and balance of a dancer but hits the deck that easy from a nothing, all arms shove? Come on. I think he'll live to dance another day :rollseyes:
Of course he'll be fine. I don't know if he sustained any injuries whatsoever...even a scuff on his pants...I don't care. You do not manhandle the public.

And of course the cop in the van could see this idiot doing a dance. Just tell him to carry that nonsense elsewhere. If a cop can't tell this idiot was doing a harmless dance...then damn...that cop is just too damned dumb to function...boot his @zz. Do they not even have intelligence testing for these cops?

But lets say the cop didn't know...after your buddy tosses the guy against the van and he says he's just dancing...then what's the problem? If he didn't touch you...what could you possibly charge this guy with? For what reason do you have to search him and manhandle him?

It's all antagonistic...and I understand it...they deal with the dregs everyday but they're powertripping all over the place. You don't need to put your hands on me to ask me what I'm doing. You don't need to cuss me and call me names if I'm not belligerent...even then, it's not responsible civil service. This guy was contrite and cowering immediately. How much damned subservience do you possibly need to see the guy is cooperating.

Oh...you're just dancing, eh? Look buddy...take it elsewhere. Now is not the time to be pulling pranks and especially behind a cop's back.

 
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.
Yep...I have no problem with someone locking his dumb @zz up for continuing to sell loosies and continuing to break laws.

I have a REAL problem with an officer using any tactics that are deemed ILLEGAL. The choke is illegal and the very moment the officer uses it (not in self defense)...then he is liable and so is the City.

I don't get what happened to the word illegal. It's like it means nothing anymore. Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Who cares what it is...it's illegal. The cop used an illegal tactic. Period.

Illegals shouldn't be getting licenses in California...hello, they are ILLEGAL. Round them up and ship them back or make them legal...but don't skirt the issue and legitimize illegal activities by just giving up and giving them licenses.

Someone seriously needs to start re-teaching America what the term illegal means...

On another note...back to that guy dancing behind cops in NY. What he did was dumb but should've been diffused by the cop getting out of the van who knew exactly what he was doing. Secondly...cops should not be able to just put their hands on you. If I were to put my hands on someone and push them up against a car...it's assault. If I were to shove you to the ground...it's again, assault. Without any real charge...there's no reason a cop should be able to put his hands on you. NYPD cops are a bit too damned handsy in my opinion. And cussing out this guy from jumpstreet is also highly unprofessional. How is that OK for a civil servant to act? To cuss you out, cuss at you while questioning you and call you derogatory names? It's antagonistic and unprofessional. If any other civil servant were to act in this manner...they'd be written up. You can find out what this guy is doing and what his motivations are without calling him names and cussing at him...much less, throwing him to the ground. Unless you have probable cause...you have no reason to search his person...and you definitely shouldn't be pushing and shoving citizens.
I agree with much of what you say (particularly about illegal) but I think you're assuming too much with the bolded and also putting too much of the responsibility on the cops and not nearly enough on dancing guy. He's the one who goes out of his way to get a reaction out of people based on them not knowing what the heck he's doing behind them. To come up behind on duty cops (shortly after two cops were killed in am ambush attack) and do something strange like that is galacticly stupid. If he's that sensitive that he can't take some harsh language, perhaps he should not be in the business of startling people for laughs. As far as the cop shoving him, I agree he shouldn't have done that but I have watched it several times and the cop's torso doesn't move. It's all arms. Bok has the agility and balance of a dancer but hits the deck that easy from a nothing, all arms shove? Come on. I think he'll live to dance another day :rollseyes:
Of course he'll be fine. I don't know if he sustained any injuries whatsoever...even a scuff on his pants...I don't care. You do not manhandle the public.

And of course the cop in the van could see this idiot doing a dance. Just tell him to carry that nonsense elsewhere. If a cop can't tell this idiot was doing a harmless dance...then damn...that cop is just too damned dumb to function...boot his @zz. Do they not even have intelligence testing for these cops?

But lets say the cop didn't know...after your buddy tosses the guy against the van and he says he's just dancing...then what's the problem? If he didn't touch you...what could you possibly charge this guy with? For what reason do you have to search him and manhandle him?

It's all antagonistic...and I understand it...they deal with the dregs everyday but they're powertripping all over the place. You don't need to put your hands on me to ask me what I'm doing. You don't need to cuss me and call me names if I'm not belligerent...even then, it's not responsible civil service. This guy was contrite and cowering immediately. How much damned subservience do you possibly need to see the guy is cooperating.

Oh...you're just dancing, eh? Look buddy...take it elsewhere. Now is not the time to be pulling pranks and especially behind a cop's back.
Your post seems to indicate you believe everyone who has attacked a cop has announced that was their intent before doing it. Come on, man. Cops deal with people who will do anything to get away. They lie, beg/plead, fake injury/unconsciousness, attack, etc. Whatever they feel will work. You don't think those cops in NYC have ever had someone act completely calm/non-threatening and then try to run or take a swing at them once their guard is perceived to be down? Unless they recognized dancing guy from one of his bits, they had every reason to be highly suspicious of him when he approached and acted weird behind one of them. We all had the benefit of knowing it was a bit when watching the video. The cops had to process that in real time. And in their line of work, giving the wrong person the benefit of the doubt might mean they don't go home that day. Once they frisked him and talked to him a little, they clearly felt he was not a threat and they told him to take a walk. Shouldn't have pushed him, but it was not as though the cop got two handfuls of the guy's shirt and chucked him on the ground with everything he had as some people seem to make it sound.

 
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.
Yep...I have no problem with someone locking his dumb @zz up for continuing to sell loosies and continuing to break laws.

I have a REAL problem with an officer using any tactics that are deemed ILLEGAL. The choke is illegal and the very moment the officer uses it (not in self defense)...then he is liable and so is the City.

I don't get what happened to the word illegal. It's like it means nothing anymore. Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Who cares what it is...it's illegal. The cop used an illegal tactic. Period.

Illegals shouldn't be getting licenses in California...hello, they are ILLEGAL. Round them up and ship them back or make them legal...but don't skirt the issue and legitimize illegal activities by just giving up and giving them licenses.

Someone seriously needs to start re-teaching America what the term illegal means...

On another note...back to that guy dancing behind cops in NY. What he did was dumb but should've been diffused by the cop getting out of the van who knew exactly what he was doing. Secondly...cops should not be able to just put their hands on you. If I were to put my hands on someone and push them up against a car...it's assault. If I were to shove you to the ground...it's again, assault. Without any real charge...there's no reason a cop should be able to put his hands on you. NYPD cops are a bit too damned handsy in my opinion. And cussing out this guy from jumpstreet is also highly unprofessional. How is that OK for a civil servant to act? To cuss you out, cuss at you while questioning you and call you derogatory names? It's antagonistic and unprofessional. If any other civil servant were to act in this manner...they'd be written up. You can find out what this guy is doing and what his motivations are without calling him names and cussing at him...much less, throwing him to the ground. Unless you have probable cause...you have no reason to search his person...and you definitely shouldn't be pushing and shoving citizens.
I agree with much of what you say (particularly about illegal) but I think you're assuming too much with the bolded and also putting too much of the responsibility on the cops and not nearly enough on dancing guy. He's the one who goes out of his way to get a reaction out of people based on them not knowing what the heck he's doing behind them. To come up behind on duty cops (shortly after two cops were killed in am ambush attack) and do something strange like that is galacticly stupid. If he's that sensitive that he can't take some harsh language, perhaps he should not be in the business of startling people for laughs. As far as the cop shoving him, I agree he shouldn't have done that but I have watched it several times and the cop's torso doesn't move. It's all arms. Bok has the agility and balance of a dancer but hits the deck that easy from a nothing, all arms shove? Come on. I think he'll live to dance another day :rollseyes:
Of course he'll be fine. I don't know if he sustained any injuries whatsoever...even a scuff on his pants...I don't care. You do not manhandle the public.

And of course the cop in the van could see this idiot doing a dance. Just tell him to carry that nonsense elsewhere. If a cop can't tell this idiot was doing a harmless dance...then damn...that cop is just too damned dumb to function...boot his @zz. Do they not even have intelligence testing for these cops?

But lets say the cop didn't know...after your buddy tosses the guy against the van and he says he's just dancing...then what's the problem? If he didn't touch you...what could you possibly charge this guy with? For what reason do you have to search him and manhandle him?

It's all antagonistic...and I understand it...they deal with the dregs everyday but they're powertripping all over the place. You don't need to put your hands on me to ask me what I'm doing. You don't need to cuss me and call me names if I'm not belligerent...even then, it's not responsible civil service. This guy was contrite and cowering immediately. How much damned subservience do you possibly need to see the guy is cooperating.

Oh...you're just dancing, eh? Look buddy...take it elsewhere. Now is not the time to be pulling pranks and especially behind a cop's back.
Your post seems to indicate you believe everyone who has attacked a cop has announced that was their intent before doing it. Come on, man. Cops deal with people who will do anything to get away. They lie, beg/plead, fake injury/unconsciousness, attack, etc. Whatever they feel will work. You don't think those cops in NYC have ever had someone act completely calm/non-threatening and then try to run or take a swing at them once their guard is perceived to be down? Unless they recognized dancing guy from one of his bits, they had every reason to be highly suspicious of him when he approached and acted weird behind one of them. We all had the benefit of knowing it was a bit when watching the video. The cops had to process that in real time. And in their line of work, giving the wrong person the benefit of the doubt might mean they don't go home that day. Once they frisked him and talked to him a little, they clearly felt he was not a threat and they told him to take a walk. Shouldn't have pushed him, but it was not as though the cop got two handfuls of the guy's shirt and chucked him on the ground with everything he had as some people seem to make it sound.
The cop in the van can see he's dancing...question him and move him along. No need to cuss him, toss him around, frisk him, cuss him some more, call him names and then toss his @zz.

It's WAY the hell over the top...come on man...be reasonable.

Is it OK for anyone else in those videos that he danced behind to respond that way? Then the cops shouldn't.

Hell, I'm not even asking for them to be held to a higher freakin standard...how about just be as decent as most other decent human beings.

No reason to escalate and harass...and cause bad blood.

I get what you're saying...I do...but it's no reason to handle it so damned abruptly, physically and verbally abusive.

Anyone else does that siht to you and you're throwing haymakers, right? Cops should not be able to just abuse people willy nilly...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".

 
Whiskey there are separate parallel discussions.

Garner resisted arrest.

Garner had 22 non cig related arrests per your post above - were any of those others for dangerous or harmful activity? If so that is Broken Windows / QOL policing is supposed to catch, bad guys doing little things in the midst of other harmful stuff they're doing. ( not my impression about Garner though).

Excessive use of force.

I view this offense far below busting someone for selling pot in the street, fir graffiti, for nuisance stuff. To me someone should not be busted for selling loose cigs, ever. Shouldn't do it in front if a store but you also shouldn't be dragged down to jail for it.
Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny, writes Newsmaxs Jim Meyers, taking his information from the WSJ report.""Meyers notes that at the time of Garners death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

From the WSJ report: "Family and friends said Mr. Garner was married with six children and two grandchildren. He has a criminal record that includes more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest and grand larceny. An official said the charges include several incidents in which he was arrested for selling unlicensed cigarettes."
The idea that a career criminal shouldn't be arrested for small crimes seems rather silly to me. He pretty clearly wasn't getting the message.The problem wasn't in arresting him, it was the way in which he was arrested.
Yep...I have no problem with someone locking his dumb @zz up for continuing to sell loosies and continuing to break laws.

I have a REAL problem with an officer using any tactics that are deemed ILLEGAL. The choke is illegal and the very moment the officer uses it (not in self defense)...then he is liable and so is the City.

I don't get what happened to the word illegal. It's like it means nothing anymore. Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. Who cares what it is...it's illegal. The cop used an illegal tactic. Period.

Illegals shouldn't be getting licenses in California...hello, they are ILLEGAL. Round them up and ship them back or make them legal...but don't skirt the issue and legitimize illegal activities by just giving up and giving them licenses.

Someone seriously needs to start re-teaching America what the term illegal means...

On another note...back to that guy dancing behind cops in NY. What he did was dumb but should've been diffused by the cop getting out of the van who knew exactly what he was doing. Secondly...cops should not be able to just put their hands on you. If I were to put my hands on someone and push them up against a car...it's assault. If I were to shove you to the ground...it's again, assault. Without any real charge...there's no reason a cop should be able to put his hands on you. NYPD cops are a bit too damned handsy in my opinion. And cussing out this guy from jumpstreet is also highly unprofessional. How is that OK for a civil servant to act? To cuss you out, cuss at you while questioning you and call you derogatory names? It's antagonistic and unprofessional. If any other civil servant were to act in this manner...they'd be written up. You can find out what this guy is doing and what his motivations are without calling him names and cussing at him...much less, throwing him to the ground. Unless you have probable cause...you have no reason to search his person...and you definitely shouldn't be pushing and shoving citizens.
I agree with much of what you say (particularly about illegal) but I think you're assuming too much with the bolded and also putting too much of the responsibility on the cops and not nearly enough on dancing guy. He's the one who goes out of his way to get a reaction out of people based on them not knowing what the heck he's doing behind them. To come up behind on duty cops (shortly after two cops were killed in am ambush attack) and do something strange like that is galacticly stupid. If he's that sensitive that he can't take some harsh language, perhaps he should not be in the business of startling people for laughs. As far as the cop shoving him, I agree he shouldn't have done that but I have watched it several times and the cop's torso doesn't move. It's all arms. Bok has the agility and balance of a dancer but hits the deck that easy from a nothing, all arms shove? Come on. I think he'll live to dance another day :rollseyes:
Of course he'll be fine. I don't know if he sustained any injuries whatsoever...even a scuff on his pants...I don't care. You do not manhandle the public.

And of course the cop in the van could see this idiot doing a dance. Just tell him to carry that nonsense elsewhere. If a cop can't tell this idiot was doing a harmless dance...then damn...that cop is just too damned dumb to function...boot his @zz. Do they not even have intelligence testing for these cops?

But lets say the cop didn't know...after your buddy tosses the guy against the van and he says he's just dancing...then what's the problem? If he didn't touch you...what could you possibly charge this guy with? For what reason do you have to search him and manhandle him?

It's all antagonistic...and I understand it...they deal with the dregs everyday but they're powertripping all over the place. You don't need to put your hands on me to ask me what I'm doing. You don't need to cuss me and call me names if I'm not belligerent...even then, it's not responsible civil service. This guy was contrite and cowering immediately. How much damned subservience do you possibly need to see the guy is cooperating.

Oh...you're just dancing, eh? Look buddy...take it elsewhere. Now is not the time to be pulling pranks and especially behind a cop's back.
Your post seems to indicate you believe everyone who has attacked a cop has announced that was their intent before doing it. Come on, man. Cops deal with people who will do anything to get away. They lie, beg/plead, fake injury/unconsciousness, attack, etc. Whatever they feel will work. You don't think those cops in NYC have ever had someone act completely calm/non-threatening and then try to run or take a swing at them once their guard is perceived to be down? Unless they recognized dancing guy from one of his bits, they had every reason to be highly suspicious of him when he approached and acted weird behind one of them. We all had the benefit of knowing it was a bit when watching the video. The cops had to process that in real time. And in their line of work, giving the wrong person the benefit of the doubt might mean they don't go home that day. Once they frisked him and talked to him a little, they clearly felt he was not a threat and they told him to take a walk. Shouldn't have pushed him, but it was not as though the cop got two handfuls of the guy's shirt and chucked him on the ground with everything he had as some people seem to make it sound.
The cop in the van can see he's dancing...question him and move him along. No need to cuss him, toss him around, frisk him, cuss him some more, call him names and then toss his @zz.

It's WAY the hell over the top...come on man...be reasonable.

Is it OK for anyone else in those videos that he danced behind to respond that way? Then the cops shouldn't.

Hell, I'm not even asking for them to be held to a higher freakin standard...how about just be as decent as most other decent human beings.

No reason to escalate and harass...and cause bad blood.

I get what you're saying...I do...but it's no reason to handle it so damned abruptly, physically and verbally abusive.

Anyone else does that siht to you and you're throwing haymakers, right? Cops should not be able to just abuse people willy nilly...
but once they established this guy was not a threat they could have toned it down a bit...no need to push the guy to the ground...its stuff like that thats creating the ever widening gap between police and joe public...they come off as bullies and look like any other armed gang on the street...im not saying thats what they are ...they provide a service ...they do protect people as well ,,,they see and do things that most people cant imagine ...dealing with scumbags day in and day out has to have a cause and effect at some point...but while this guy was being stupid he didnt deserve to be surrounded and insulted and then bullied ...not necessary

 
look like any other armed gang on the street
I don't mean to belabor this but does anyone find it odd that we are discussing cop misconduct in a thread about Liu's and Ramos' deaths? Their deaths have no connection to these issues, right?

If the issue fits in, how?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
look like any other armed gang on the street
I don't mean to belabor this but does anyone find it odd that we are discussing cop misconduct in a thread about Liu's and Ramos' deaths? Their deaths have no connection to these issues, right?

If the issue fits in, how?
of course its related...people are becoming less and less tolerant of police misconduct...its a new world with video cameras now...people are witnessing these beatings and killings first hand and its angering people like that ### hat that shot the 2 cops...its all relevant

 
look like any other armed gang on the street
I don't mean to belabor this but does anyone find it odd that we are discussing cop misconduct in a thread about Liu's and Ramos' deaths? Their deaths have no connection to these issues, right?

If the issue fits in, how?
of course its related...people are becoming less and less tolerant of police misconduct...its a new world with video cameras now...people are witnessing these beatings and killings first hand and its angering people like that ### hat that shot the 2 cops...its all relevant
I'm just going to say that I don't think that cops have done anything that have led to this anymore than the average, well meaning protestor has done anything that led to the 2 NYPD deaths. There has definitely been extremist rhetoric out there, but again that is by and large not related to the discussion of police policy and civil rights.

 
look like any other armed gang on the street
I don't mean to belabor this but does anyone find it odd that we are discussing cop misconduct in a thread about Liu's and Ramos' deaths? Their deaths have no connection to these issues, right?

If the issue fits in, how?
of course its related...people are becoming less and less tolerant of police misconduct...its a new world with video cameras now...people are witnessing these beatings and killings first hand and its angering people like that ### hat that shot the 2 cops...its all relevant
I'm just going to say that I don't think that cops have done anything that have led to this anymore than the average, well meaning protestor has done anything that led to the 2 NYPD deaths. There has definitely been extremist rhetoric out there, but again that is by and large not related to the discussion of police policy and civil rights.
In your opinion

 
how is this incident even registering on radar? Guy sneaks up on cops. Gets questioned. Gets pushed away. He falls down. Oh the horror!.
It's perplexing to me as well. Over the past two pages I've posted articles where police in Boston and Florida were attacked by packs of people simply because the officers were making a lawful arrest. In both instances the officers sustained injuries. Yet an officer pushing a prankster who sustained no injuries is getting more traction? To each their own I guess.
I was waiting for more clarity to respond on these incidents. Here is some.

https://storify.com/tempusrob/cory-provost-pd-incident

I suspect we will hear more in the coming days.
Here is the full length video.

I think the police acted pretty professionally. There was a lot of chaos and a lot of people approaching the police from multiple directions. They got chest to chest with them many times. I am actually surprised they didn't have a better perimeter formed. While cuffing somebody by their cruiser they allowed multiple people to rush in and get within 12 inches of them. That seems a little dangerous actually.

 
Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".
Would that justify a civil servant tuning him up? No.

 
Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".
Would that justify a civil servant tuning him up? No.
I'm sure 0 out of X passengers would have had a problem with an Air Marshal "tuning him up".
 
Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".
Would that justify a civil servant tuning him up? No.
I'm sure 0 out of X passengers would have had a problem with an Air Marshal "tuning him up".
So...you're saying as long as someone is justified emotionally...they can do whatever?

So I get mad at something...I can just beat someone's @zz...without the law being able to do anything about it?

You can't honestly feel that this is the way we should interpret law.

 
Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".
Would that justify a civil servant tuning him up? No.
:lol: You're acting like the cops decked this guy and then put the boots to him when he was down. They pushed him up against the vehicle, frisked him, asked him if he was a ####### ####### (legit question at the time) and then pushed him away. If that equates to "tuning him up" in your mind, I am afraid I can't discuss this with you any further.

Of all the places/people in the city the guy could pull his prank and (in light of everything that's been going on) he choses to sneak up right behind an on-duty NYPD officer? Are you ####### kidding me??

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".
Would that justify a civil servant tuning him up? No.
:lol: You're acting like the cops decked this guy and then put the boots to him when he was down. They pushed him up against the vehicle, frisked him, asked him if he was a ####### ####### (legit question at the time) and then pushed him away. If that equates to "tuning him up" in your mind, I am afraid I can't discuss this with you any further.
well thank god they didnt put him in death choke hold cuz thats been known to happen

 
Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".
Would that justify a civil servant tuning him up? No.
:lol: You're acting like the cops decked this guy and then put the boots to him when he was down. They pushed him up against the vehicle, frisked him, asked him if he was a ####### ####### (legit question at the time) and then pushed him away. If that equates to "tuning him up" in your mind, I am afraid I can't discuss this with you any further.

Of all the places/people in the city the guy could pull his prank and (in light of everything that's been going on) he choses to sneak up right behind an on-duty NYPD officer? Are you ####### kidding me??
I was responding to the scenario given about 9-11.

You can choose to keep giggling, clown...or discuss...up to you.

 
Emotions are high and people are on edge. There's a time and place for jokes, and that wasn't it. It's nice to be able to Monday morning QB, but people need to use their heads.

You think someone may have lost their cool if he did a dancing bit outside a cockpit door after 9-11? Probably. Even though it was a "joke".
I haven't read the whole thread. Is this the first comparison to 9/11?
 
how is this incident even registering on radar? Guy sneaks up on cops. Gets questioned. Gets pushed away. He falls down. Oh the horror!.
It's perplexing to me as well. Over the past two pages I've posted articles where police in Boston and Florida were attacked by packs of people simply because the officers were making a lawful arrest. In both instances the officers sustained injuries. Yet an officer pushing a prankster who sustained no injuries is getting more traction? To each their own I guess.
I was waiting for more clarity to respond on these incidents. Here is some.https://storify.com/tempusrob/cory-provost-pd-incident

I suspect we will hear more in the coming days.
Here is the full length video. I think the police acted pretty professionally. There was a lot of chaos and a lot of people approaching the police from multiple directions. They got chest to chest with them many times. I am actually surprised they didn't have a better perimeter formed. While cuffing somebody by their cruiser they allowed multiple people to rush in and get within 12 inches of them. That seems a little dangerous actually.
I posted the better videos earlier. Check out this video for a lesson in having the patience of a Saint. The black cop gets taunted beyond belief, called the n-word, and challenged to a fight. http://youtu.be/SDl_2T7dgyQBy the way, one of the 4 guys arrested had crack cocaine on him.

 
Nice to see that the New York police officers stopped their pouty-kid-stomping-feet act in time to be respectful at a funeral for a fellow officer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/03/us-usa-police-idUSKBN0KC0E920150103

Bratton said that for the past seven days, the city and the country had focused on "an act of disrespect." The commissioner called the action inappropriate and said it had stolen the "valor, honor and attention" that rightfully belonged to the slain officer.
 
Nice to see that the New York police officers stopped their pouty-kid-stomping-feet act in time to be respectful at a funeral for a fellow officer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/03/us-usa-police-idUSKBN0KC0E920150103

Bratton said that for the past seven days, the city and the country had focused on "an act of disrespect." The commissioner called the action inappropriate and said it had stolen the "valor, honor and attention" that rightfully belonged to the slain officer.
Well, for the sake of clarity, the Officers who turned their backs on the Mayor at the previous funeral did so to a video screen outside the funeral home. I haven't seen any account of the officers doing anything disrespectful inside the church or in the presence of the family.
 
how is this incident even registering on radar? Guy sneaks up on cops. Gets questioned. Gets pushed away. He falls down. Oh the horror!.
It's perplexing to me as well. Over the past two pages I've posted articles where police in Boston and Florida were attacked by packs of people simply because the officers were making a lawful arrest. In both instances the officers sustained injuries. Yet an officer pushing a prankster who sustained no injuries is getting more traction? To each their own I guess.
I was waiting for more clarity to respond on these incidents. Here is some.https://storify.com/tempusrob/cory-provost-pd-incident

I suspect we will hear more in the coming days.
Here is the full length video. I think the police acted pretty professionally. There was a lot of chaos and a lot of people approaching the police from multiple directions. They got chest to chest with them many times. I am actually surprised they didn't have a better perimeter formed. While cuffing somebody by their cruiser they allowed multiple people to rush in and get within 12 inches of them. That seems a little dangerous actually.
I posted the better videos earlier. Check out this video for a lesson in having the patience of a Saint. The black cop gets taunted beyond belief, called the n-word, and challenged to a fight. http://youtu.be/SDl_2T7dgyQBy the way, one of the 4 guys arrested had crack cocaine on him.
Pinky sure was ready to rely 100% on some BS tweets to determine that cops were in the wrong here.

In 24 minutes of video I cant see a single thing so far I could even remotely criticize them about. Just listening to the people at that party in that video is awful. The only good thing I can say about them is that they didnt say the word "jit".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
how is this incident even registering on radar? Guy sneaks up on cops. Gets questioned. Gets pushed away. He falls down. Oh the horror!.
It's perplexing to me as well. Over the past two pages I've posted articles where police in Boston and Florida were attacked by packs of people simply because the officers were making a lawful arrest. In both instances the officers sustained injuries. Yet an officer pushing a prankster who sustained no injuries is getting more traction? To each their own I guess.
I was waiting for more clarity to respond on these incidents. Here is some.https://storify.com/tempusrob/cory-provost-pd-incident

I suspect we will hear more in the coming days.
Here is the full length video. I think the police acted pretty professionally. There was a lot of chaos and a lot of people approaching the police from multiple directions. They got chest to chest with them many times. I am actually surprised they didn't have a better perimeter formed. While cuffing somebody by their cruiser they allowed multiple people to rush in and get within 12 inches of them. That seems a little dangerous actually.
I posted the better videos earlier. Check out this video for a lesson in having the patience of a Saint. The black cop gets taunted beyond belief, called the n-word, and challenged to a fight. http://youtu.be/SDl_2T7dgyQBy the way, one of the 4 guys arrested had crack cocaine on him.
Pinky sure was ready to rely 100% on some BS tweets to determine that cops were in the wrong here. In 24 minutes of video I cant see a single thing so far I could even remotely criticize them about. Just listening to the people at that party in that video is awful. The only good thing I can say about them is that they didnt say the word "jit".
can you imagine if jit was there? He would've been flipping cars over.
 
parasaurolophus said:
General Tso said:
parasaurolophus said:
how is this incident even registering on radar? Guy sneaks up on cops. Gets questioned. Gets pushed away. He falls down. Oh the horror!.
It's perplexing to me as well. Over the past two pages I've posted articles where police in Boston and Florida were attacked by packs of people simply because the officers were making a lawful arrest. In both instances the officers sustained injuries. Yet an officer pushing a prankster who sustained no injuries is getting more traction? To each their own I guess.
I was waiting for more clarity to respond on these incidents. Here is some.https://storify.com/tempusrob/cory-provost-pd-incident

I suspect we will hear more in the coming days.
Here is the full length video. I think the police acted pretty professionally. There was a lot of chaos and a lot of people approaching the police from multiple directions. They got chest to chest with them many times. I am actually surprised they didn't have a better perimeter formed. While cuffing somebody by their cruiser they allowed multiple people to rush in and get within 12 inches of them. That seems a little dangerous actually.
I posted the better videos earlier. Check out this video for a lesson in having the patience of a Saint. The black cop gets taunted beyond belief, called the n-word, and challenged to a fight. http://youtu.be/SDl_2T7dgyQBy the way, one of the 4 guys arrested had crack cocaine on him.
Pinky sure was ready to rely 100% on some BS tweets to determine that cops were in the wrong here.

In 24 minutes of video I cant see a single thing so far I could even remotely criticize them about. Just listening to the people at that party in that video is awful. The only good thing I can say about them is that they didnt say the word "jit".
i was? i simply posted the info and waited for more. :shrug:

 
fatness said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
look like any other armed gang on the street
I don't mean to belabor this but does anyone find it odd that we are discussing cop misconduct in a thread about Liu's and Ramos' deaths? Their deaths have no connection to these issues, right?

If the issue fits in, how?
:lol:

You brought it up on page 1.
Right and you brought it up here and I replied right there.

Feel free to reply which you did not. Respectfully not trying to drive this point.

 
2 more cops shot in the Bronx per Yahoo!
Should be OK per reports. One shot in back, other in the arm.
well this proves it...its a dangerous job
Is this supposed to be funny?
Did you laugh?
Nope.

Not sure why anyone would laugh...doesn't mean someone wasn't trying.
Is this supposed to be funny?

 
The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, study finds

‘Counter-bias’ rooted in concerns over social and legal consequences
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, January 5, 2015

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.
“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.
The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”
In fact, he said, officers involved in shootings have told him that they were actually relieved that the person they shot was white, not black.

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The interviews, which he conducted for a book he’s planning to finish this year, run directly counter to the prevailing view pushed by social justice groups, politicians and others: that shooting victims such as 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson were victims at least in part of racial discrimination against blacks among cops.

“Police officers — at least the ones I interviewed — are very sensitive to the race issue, but not in the way this popular narrative is running, i.e., cops are out there trying to find young black men who don’t have guns so they can shoot them down like dogs in the street,” Mr. Klinger said. “That just isn’t anything I’ve found in any of the research that I’ve done.”

The study, “Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations,” was conducted by Mr. Klinger and Washington State University assistant research professor Lois James and criminal justice and criminology professor Bryan Vila.

For their research, the authors used a pioneering WSU simulation involving full-size, high-definition video instead of photos and handguns modified to shoot infrared beams instead of the “shoot” buttons typically used in deadly-force studies.

About a third of the scenarios in the study were “no shoot” situations in which perpetrators of different races held cellphones or wallets, while the rest were “shoot” situations in which suspects were armed with knives or guns.

The study found that the 48 participants waited longest before firing on black suspects in “shoot” scenarios, even though the participants exhibited “stronger threat responses” when facing black suspects than with white or Hispanic suspects.

Eighty-five percent of the participants were white, and none was a police officer. At the same time, a 2013 study led by Ms. James using active police, military and the general public found the same phenomenon: All three groups took longer to shoot black suspects, and participants were also more likely to fire on unarmed whites and Hispanics than blacks.

“In other words, there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned,” the 2013 study said, according to WSU News.

The findings challenge not only popular assumptions but also previous social science research suggesting that whites, including police officers, have an “implicit bias” against blacks. The drawback with such implicit-bias studies is that they use the push-button model and less realistic scenarios, said Mr. Klinger.

“That’s important research. It’s good research,” Mr. Klinger said. “The problem is it bears absolutely no relationship with actual shooting events. And people are not reading all the caveats that the authors put into the article saying, ‘This is not real life, this is a laboratory, we don’t know about external validity,’ and so on.”

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force — and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

“And this is consistent with every other study that’s ever been done,” said Mr. Klinger, who, as a rookie officer in Los Angeles, fatally shot a black man armed with a knife who had stabbed his partner, Dennis Azevedo, in the chest.

“Once you start looking at levels of violence, levels of threat, blacks are not shot in manners that are disproportionate to their involvement in illegal activity,” he said. “And it doesn’t matter if the cop is black, white or Hispanic, police officers presented with deadly threats use deadly force. Period, paragraph, end of story.”
 
The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, study finds

‘Counter-bias’ rooted in concerns over social and legal consequences
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, January 5, 2015

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.
“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.
The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”
In fact, he said, officers involved in shootings have told him that they were actually relieved that the person they shot was white, not black.

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The interviews, which he conducted for a book he’s planning to finish this year, run directly counter to the prevailing view pushed by social justice groups, politicians and others: that shooting victims such as 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson were victims at least in part of racial discrimination against blacks among cops.

“Police officers — at least the ones I interviewed — are very sensitive to the race issue, but not in the way this popular narrative is running, i.e., cops are out there trying to find young black men who don’t have guns so they can shoot them down like dogs in the street,” Mr. Klinger said. “That just isn’t anything I’ve found in any of the research that I’ve done.”

The study, “Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations,” was conducted by Mr. Klinger and Washington State University assistant research professor Lois James and criminal justice and criminology professor Bryan Vila.

For their research, the authors used a pioneering WSU simulation involving full-size, high-definition video instead of photos and handguns modified to shoot infrared beams instead of the “shoot” buttons typically used in deadly-force studies.

About a third of the scenarios in the study were “no shoot” situations in which perpetrators of different races held cellphones or wallets, while the rest were “shoot” situations in which suspects were armed with knives or guns.

The study found that the 48 participants waited longest before firing on black suspects in “shoot” scenarios, even though the participants exhibited “stronger threat responses” when facing black suspects than with white or Hispanic suspects.

Eighty-five percent of the participants were white, and none was a police officer. At the same time, a 2013 study led by Ms. James using active police, military and the general public found the same phenomenon: All three groups took longer to shoot black suspects, and participants were also more likely to fire on unarmed whites and Hispanics than blacks.

“In other words, there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned,” the 2013 study said, according to WSU News.

The findings challenge not only popular assumptions but also previous social science research suggesting that whites, including police officers, have an “implicit bias” against blacks. The drawback with such implicit-bias studies is that they use the push-button model and less realistic scenarios, said Mr. Klinger.

“That’s important research. It’s good research,” Mr. Klinger said. “The problem is it bears absolutely no relationship with actual shooting events. And people are not reading all the caveats that the authors put into the article saying, ‘This is not real life, this is a laboratory, we don’t know about external validity,’ and so on.”

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force — and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

“And this is consistent with every other study that’s ever been done,” said Mr. Klinger, who, as a rookie officer in Los Angeles, fatally shot a black man armed with a knife who had stabbed his partner, Dennis Azevedo, in the chest.

“Once you start looking at levels of violence, levels of threat, blacks are not shot in manners that are disproportionate to their involvement in illegal activity,” he said. “And it doesn’t matter if the cop is black, white or Hispanic, police officers presented with deadly threats use deadly force. Period, paragraph, end of story.”
A 48-participant study using simulations instead of actual incidents of use of force, as reported by the Washington Times. Hold the phone, guys. This changes EVERYTHING.

Maybe my criticism is too harsh, though. The text also discusses data from actual incidents, albeit second-hand as compiled and analyzed by a cop who shot a black guy.

 
I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, study finds

‘Counter-bias’ rooted in concerns over social and legal consequences
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, January 5, 2015

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.
“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.
The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”
In fact, he said, officers involved in shootings have told him that they were actually relieved that the person they shot was white, not black.

“The second things is, I’ve had multiple officers tell me they were worried in the wake of a shooting because they shot a black person, and I’ve had multiple officers tell me that they were glad that the person they shot was white,” Mr. Klinger said. “Because then they knew they weren’t going to have to be subject to the racial harangue.”

The interviews, which he conducted for a book he’s planning to finish this year, run directly counter to the prevailing view pushed by social justice groups, politicians and others: that shooting victims such as 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson were victims at least in part of racial discrimination against blacks among cops.

“Police officers — at least the ones I interviewed — are very sensitive to the race issue, but not in the way this popular narrative is running, i.e., cops are out there trying to find young black men who don’t have guns so they can shoot them down like dogs in the street,” Mr. Klinger said. “That just isn’t anything I’ve found in any of the research that I’ve done.”

The study, “Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations,” was conducted by Mr. Klinger and Washington State University assistant research professor Lois James and criminal justice and criminology professor Bryan Vila.

For their research, the authors used a pioneering WSU simulation involving full-size, high-definition video instead of photos and handguns modified to shoot infrared beams instead of the “shoot” buttons typically used in deadly-force studies.

About a third of the scenarios in the study were “no shoot” situations in which perpetrators of different races held cellphones or wallets, while the rest were “shoot” situations in which suspects were armed with knives or guns.

The study found that the 48 participants waited longest before firing on black suspects in “shoot” scenarios, even though the participants exhibited “stronger threat responses” when facing black suspects than with white or Hispanic suspects.

Eighty-five percent of the participants were white, and none was a police officer. At the same time, a 2013 study led by Ms. James using active police, military and the general public found the same phenomenon: All three groups took longer to shoot black suspects, and participants were also more likely to fire on unarmed whites and Hispanics than blacks.

“In other words, there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned,” the 2013 study said, according to WSU News.

The findings challenge not only popular assumptions but also previous social science research suggesting that whites, including police officers, have an “implicit bias” against blacks. The drawback with such implicit-bias studies is that they use the push-button model and less realistic scenarios, said Mr. Klinger.

“That’s important research. It’s good research,” Mr. Klinger said. “The problem is it bears absolutely no relationship with actual shooting events. And people are not reading all the caveats that the authors put into the article saying, ‘This is not real life, this is a laboratory, we don’t know about external validity,’ and so on.”

So why are blacks shot more often by police? While the FBI’s national database has been widely criticized as incomplete, data compiled by Mr. Klinger in St. Louis over the past decade shows that 90 percent of police shootings involve blacks, even though they only make up 49 percent of the city’s population.

At the same time, he said, that figure is commensurate with the percentage of blacks involved in violent crime. Roughly 90 percent of those killed each year in St. Louis are black, and 90 percent of them are shot by other blacks, he said.

What’s more, he said, black SWAT officers make up about one-third of the St. Louis force — and they commit on average about one-third of the shootings each year.

“And this is consistent with every other study that’s ever been done,” said Mr. Klinger, who, as a rookie officer in Los Angeles, fatally shot a black man armed with a knife who had stabbed his partner, Dennis Azevedo, in the chest.

“Once you start looking at levels of violence, levels of threat, blacks are not shot in manners that are disproportionate to their involvement in illegal activity,” he said. “And it doesn’t matter if the cop is black, white or Hispanic, police officers presented with deadly threats use deadly force. Period, paragraph, end of story.”
"However, the current study only measured the alpha waves of participants drawn from the general public, not law enforcement or the military. Consequently, wrote the authors, 'results from this sample are not generalizable to sworn officers.'"

 
I do appreciate you posting it, though. This is a serious and often depressing subject, and it was nice to have a laugh.
What are you saying here?

That you know for a fact the article and conclusions are false?

Otherwise I'm trying to figure out exactly what's so funny.

 
2 more cops shot in the Bronx per Yahoo!
Should be OK per reports. One shot in back, other in the arm.
well this proves it...its a dangerous job
Is this supposed to be funny?
Did you laugh?
Nope.

Not sure why anyone would laugh...doesn't mean someone wasn't trying.
Is this supposed to be funny?
Umm...no.

Go ahead and continue whatever it is you are trying to do here though.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top