Agreed, that video was disturbing because the guy did nothing to deserve the over the top treatment he got. The decision not to prosecute in that case looks very dubious indeed. In this case "resisting arrest" constituted asking the police to leave him alone. The worst bit is you can clearly hear him telling the police he can't breathe, even on a recording made by a ****ty microphone on a smartphone located on the streets of New York, yet the police ignored him.
Every single video I have seen of US police, when wrestling a suspect to the ground, the police can clearly be heard shouting over and over: "Stop resisting"....even when the guy is subdued with six officers piled on top of him unable to breath. I am certain it's in their unofficial hand book to say that for the benefit of any cameras present. It justifies their unnecessary and over the top force.
Thought this was a very powerful and touching video regarding the situation, well worth a watch in my eyes http://vimeo.com/110516243
Just let all the Americans finish nuking and shooting each other and the rest of the world can later prosper following the extinction of the neanderthal man.
Also compared to the alleged offence between the two, the New York fella's crime was selling single cigarettes in the street, police reaction was well OTT.
So you are saying selling cigarettes doesn't warrant a beating but stealing them does warrant being shot. Interesting view point if not completletely and utterly absurd.
You're quite right, it's absolutely not OTT and 100% appropriate for NY to send half a dozen police officers to stop a man selling single cigarettes in the street.
Now, what we are seeing across America over the past couple of days, thousands of people taking part in dignified protests of the lawful and peaceful kind, is an admirable demonstration of how it should be done. Fortunately, if there are any people suggesting that such a Grand Jury decision should again trigger riots, etc, they are not being listened to, on this occasion.
We've seen a Grand Jury decision where a bloke selling single cigarettes (albeit a big black one) isn't particularly resisting arrest, certainly not violently, is nevertheless 'visited' by six polis, wrestled to the ground by one of them and strangled to death despite being heard persistently to complain 'I can't breath'. So my question is - what would it actually take for a Grand Jury in the USA to decide that maybe there's enough evidence to indict? How much more do they need? What's the racial mix of this one? Genuine question - I don't know the answer. And you complain about o.t.t. public reaction (but not on this occasion). Sure - the restraint's commendable. But the question is - will it make any difference? Seems to me like you're always happy enough with the status quo as long as law and order is maintained. Because that's your background - ex-polisman. Sure, you've admitted there's maybe more of a case to answer on this occasion. So what? What I'd like to see is some change and the white US polis to be required to quit murdering black people with impunity and getting away with it. Whether that's achieved by the Gandhi or the Mandela method makes little difference to me. And don't give me any 'genuinely puzzled' b.llocks because you're not - it's code for 'l'm not puzzled at all, but I'll pretend I am because it'll be confusing.' Part of your training in interviewing a suspect technique? It sure doesn't confuse me though. Neither request a detailed analysis of the thread so far. Can't you keep up all by yourself? Or say that I and others 'haven't got a clue' because we, on occasion, have the audacity to disagree with you. Arrogant tw.t.
It's very apparent to me that much of the racism on display in the U.S. comes from the black community itself. Not that they don't have cause for resentment particularly of the police but they do themselves no favours by calling racism for practically every arrest. Admittedly I don't know if the officer in question would have reacted the same if the guy he was arresting had been white but I suspect it's probable. (In Ferguson)
Kelso, I'm not quoting your last post as it is long. You are trying very hard to make this personal, I have asked for just one specific example to back up your personal attacks (I havn't asked for any "detailed analysis") and you have been unable to do so. So I take the thread back on to the subject matter, and you go back all "name calling" again. It does seem to be a regular trait on a forum, that when someone is obviously losing the argument, they just attack the posters to deflect the attention. A good tactic, but in reality it doesn't fool anyone unless you can be specific, and you can't, so I think it is best I don't respond in future. I treat PhilippineHorn in the same way, I find it best. Blimey, that's two of you, only another few thousand and I'll be talking to myself on here.
Shame, kicked off in Berkley, rioting, shops looted, etc. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/08/us-usa-new-york-chokehold-idUSKCN0JH2BI20141208
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who transitions from protesting to looting was just looking for an excuse to loot in the first place. I said the same thing during the London riots, where as near as I could tell the majority of the looters were white. It's a problem that's noting to do with race and everything to do with criminally minded opportunists.
The coverage of these shootings have been quite a quite a recurrant feature on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show - mainly he's been showing how idiotic some of the media coverage has been. A week(?) ago he did a piece showing the shooting of six unarmed black blokes but it turned out that one of the guys he showed wasn't shot but was tazered and died from the effects of a narcotics binge - a factual error. He apologised for the error on Monday's edition and showed some of the media's response to his "mistake" and he comments, in his own forthright manner, on those responses. [video]<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:thedailyshow.com:37a54c38-e23a-4340-98b4-a609d33ef310" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/">The Daily Show</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/">Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href="http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow">The Daily Show on Facebook</a>,<a href="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos">Daily Show Video Archive</a></p></div></div>[/video] NB The Daily Show's embedding and rights stuff can be a little odd - if you can't see it tell me and I'll try and find/make a youtube of it. EDIT: NSFW contains strong adult language particularly the word "f u c k".
Here's the attitude to race employed by the Florida Police. http://news.sky.com/story/1409452/cops-used-black-mugshots-for-target-practice
Not true, they also use pictures of white people and Latin types, and women. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/north-miami-beach-target-practice_n_6482964.html You just picked one newspaper article and assumed that this means that all Florida Police are racist, without looking into the whole situation. You are more guilty of assumptive stereotyping than the police are. It is a sort of racism, in reverse. Quite abhorrent.
Er no ZZ and you've picked an article that undermines your case as it refers to using Trayvon Martin's photo. It's not surprising that they'll claim they'll use anyone's mugshot (quite why you would use real people is beyond me) but they were the targets that were up when the sister of one of them visited. Surely you would avoid having a wall of six black people to aim at if you wanted to avoid the kind of criticism they have recently been under?
No, the article says clearly that Major Katy Katerman says that photos of other races are being used. Stop being pedantic, Moose, in your post you made a widespread assumption that all Florida Police have a racist attitude. It is attitudes like yours that fuels hatred against the police, which pre-empt their executions, just for wearing their uniform.
Well the families of those two American police officers just shot & killed in their car, just for wearing the uniform, wouldn't find your attitude funny, even if you do.
Maybe for the Paris thread but ... It does seem as if the terror threat is winding up across Europe, given Belgium and other reports, with the police likely to be specifically targeted over and above putting themselves in the front line on behalf of the rest of us.
I agree and I salute that as do most people. For family reasons as much as any other I don't have an issue with police officers. I know there are good police officers. The US is a different environment and culture. I'd argue that institutional racism puts police officers there at risk. It's no good pretending as if this is a non-story. Black people don't just discover this in the newspaper one day and think OMG.
Your phrase, "I know there are good police officers" tells me where you are coming from. You think the majority are racist. The issue is not that there is some racism in the police, or that this wouldn't have an inflationary effect on relations with the police. The issue is that you jumped on a one sided article as "proof" that the Florida Police are racist as a whole and posted it, intending everyone to think exactly that. I repeat, your anti-police attitude stinks and is no worse than racism, or Islamophobia, for example. Fortunately, no one takes you seriously.
I think Sky News took the story seriously. I think only you with your warped and reactionary views would look at it and say anything other than WTF? You don't understand the issue of institutional prejudice. 20 years ago the British Police acted in a way that treated people partially. Old coppers come on the TV and talk about it now. I believe it has changed a lot, but it seems as if some jurisdictions in the US are some way behind. Your excuse that they have pictures of everyone (where were they) is ****ing idiocy of the first order. We all take on the culture of where we work. Doesn't matter who we are we all become a little bit like someone who has done that job while we are doing it. Doesn't matter if you have no prejudicial feeling. If everyone else does you'll internalise some of it. Public services above all need to build a culture of even handedness and appear to be so.
I have said that we acknowledge that there will be racism in the police. But I strongly object to your assumption and misreporting that the entire Florida Police are racist in an effort to create more anti police sentiment. When police are now under threat of kidnap and beheading, of being shot in the cars, etc, just for being in the police. I understand the issue of institutional racism/predjudice, etc. It may surprise you to hear that the TUC was also described as "institutionally racist" in the 90's, something that they accepted and set up an internal enquiry to sort it out. They also launched enquiries into UNISON and other individual unions who were similarly condemned. Left wing councils, such as Hackney and Haringey were also found to be guilty the same thing around the same time. Also the Church Of England also admitted that they were also "institutionally racist. By your use of the expression institutionally racist, all C of E members and all union members are racist as well as the police. That is plainly wrong. MacPherson's definition of a racist incident is something that is perceived to be racist by the "victim" or some other person. In other words, the motive or attitude of the perpetrator does not have to be racist. His definition for Institutional Racism within the Met highlighted that they were "unwittingly" racist via their procedures, rather than individually racist. That is a huge difference from suggesting that police are just racist. I know you don't like me using my own experiences, but in my time in the police I have honestly never, ever come across a policy or procedure that had a racist intent - apart from a policy that ordered us to treat non whites more carefully, with more sensitivity and more restraint than whites. For example, police were ordered not to take action regarding possession of drugs in certain areas and at certain times, such as the Notting Hill Carnival. If you saw the amount of work that went into monitoring and policing the far right movement in the 80's, you would not be so swift to condemn.
1)http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2013/08/DrugPolicing.aspx "Black people caught in possession of cannabis by the Metropolitan Police are less likely to receive a cannabis warning than white people, and are charged at 5 times the rate of whites." 2) if lax policing around the notting hill carnival is considered ethnically-sensitive policing, does that mean identical strategies at glastonbury/reading e.t.c are also ethnically sensitive, or is that just what happens at any kind of relaxed mass-cultural event?
1) how can I answer based on one stat? It may be that the black people have previous for possession more often, and therefore a caution. I don't know, provide me with more info. I am sure that the survey had more stats, but just wanted to print the interesting ones. How did they arrive at the numbers, ask the youths, or what? After all, the survey was published by the Mannheim facility at the LSE, that is well known for it's socialist views and anti police stance, publishing book a state violence and collusion, etc. 2) I gave it as an example, and one that people would have heard of. It was treated as I described because of the event kicking off in previous years with black riots. It was at the time of the Brixton, Stoke Newington, Southall riots, etc. as far as I know, there were no other similar instructions at such events. The only "no go" area in London was surrounding the Mangrove pub/restaurant in All Saints Road, Notting Hill a hotbed of drug trafficking with the local blacks. It wasn't publicly acknowledged as a no-go area, however. I am just telling the truth about what I experienced in the 80's. I know it doesn't fit in with your view, you either believe me, or you must just assume I am lying. I don't really care.
i have no doubt that are telling the truth as far as your ability to see things allows it. i just think that your ability to see things is limited by your life experience as, i'm guessing, a white straight able-bodied british born male who used to work for 'the man'
oops. forgot to finish my thought. blah blah blah... and so we should all try a little harder to try and really see where everyone is coming from before dismissing it on nothing more than our own direct experience of a situation
I only worked in the police and another related job for a total of 13 years, I have over 40 years of other general experiences. You may think I should write those years off, but I don't. ...and do people that have no such experiences, who get their views from leftie lecturers, socialist trade Union leaders, or the internet and/or The Guardian and maybe half my age, have a better chance of having a more rounded view of life? Debatable?
I agree. So tell me your own experiences and why you hold such views, then I can better understand. And if others want to do the same, I'd be delighted. But just picking out an internet article and declaring it as an undeniable truth that supports your view is just stretching it too far.
so i can't suggest that maybe there is a fundamental and inescapable reason that it's hard for everyone (myself included) to be able to authentically dismiss the experience of people who aren't us, because of the fundamental and inescable reason that it's hard for me (just me) to be able to authentically understand your life up to now? debatable?
