Atlanta-area police shoot dead unarmed and naked African American man

So you WANT to see white people killed.......how telling.

 

Well lets say this oofficer had a degree in it, what are you asseting would have been different here.

 

Well if the dangerous person was 15 feet away he can cover that distance in less than a second so how slowly should the officer have handled it?

 

What trend? Could in more accurately be described as a trend of young black males violating the law in violent acts and then resisting arrest with force and that obviously with this latest event the trend continues?

 

Which ones of those young black males was not engaged in violence or presenting a threat?

 

I believe he was countering the claim more blacks in sheer numbers are killed. Are you claiming proportionally whites commit crimes at the same rates as blacks?

 

Ahhh no really. I deal with facts you just demonstrated you deal in made up nonsense. Thanks

Obstructing a roadway and no its his job. Couldn't Brown have just gotten out of the street Oh YEAH the radio call came outbto arrest him. See I deal in facts not phony conjecture.

He came against nine times he was arrested for violating the rights of the lawful store owners.

Your problem is you can't refute the facts and have to make things up and spout your conjecture and supposition.

Thanks again for proving the point.

 

personally, I think you'll find its the rules, laws and policies that have been written and interpreted to protect the 'investment' capital represented by the trained cop and to protect the police dept/city from liability. Every vested interest (the union, the police dept management, the mayors office, the District attorney's office ) that impacts on how cops are trained, disciplined and treated, is negatively affected by a judicial or quasi-judicial ruling going against a use of force.

When a video-taped repetitive beating of an unarmed man by 5 cops can be justified using the only their perceptions of the nature of a threat when he tried to rise up off his elbow, and the training manuals and procedure guidelines supplied by the police dept, the problem lies in those manuals and procedures.

It is always the most conservative, least physically risky decision that is rewarded by the union, the fellow cops, the upper brass, and internal affairs as 'appropriate, but unfortunate' and the guidelines have been writen to be as close to risk -free as humanly possible. The 'culture' pervades the dept, and the regs and even the state legislature plays a part when a new bill is proposed to further reduce police or local liability and thus protect our men in blue, and juries are very hesitant to second guess all of the above.

For the most part these cops are doing what everyone and every written document around them, has told and insisted that they do!

think about it, most guys who are physically strong,confident and well trained in hand-to hand are not going to want to use lethal force on that nude wacko guy. These men have been trained and trained and trained again to shoot first , rather than trip or punch or kick or use a baton, or try to subdue. Once they have, it is all about emotional support and some free counseling all designed to make them feel sure that the instinctive FIRST choice of using lesser forces was the wrong one and grabbing that gun was the only decision that guaranteed NO risk to himself or other cops.

 

Besides Tasers do not tend to have a lot of effect on 300+ lbs. LE's are taught rightly that when dealing with potentially dangerous suspect to forgo the Taser and stick with their gun when alone, because there is no one to back them up if the Taser does not work and in this case he was alone and the man had already attacked him once and shots had already been fired. It was a sad incident all around and there are no winners but the fault all lies with the Perp that ended up dying for his own actions.

 

Yes, of course, I think everyone agrees with this. The source for concern, as I read it, is whether (1) the officer's assessment of the danger was influenced by any racial factors; and (2) if so, and if deadly force could have been avoided (even easily avoided), should we use the officer's professional judgment as definitive?

There seems to be no question that the naked man was acting unpredictably, and no question that the officer considered his behavior threatening enough to open fire. The officer was undoubtedly sincere, and no policeman wants to shoot anyone if at all possible. So I guess we wait and see.

 

Apparently you have forgotten all the facts already. Martin wasn't doing anything threatening. Zimmerman reported him, and the police told Zimmerman he didn't have to do anything. Zimmerman instead chose to follow Martin. Martin didn't know why he was being followed, and feared the worst. If Zimmerman had done nothing at, Martin would have returned to his destination without any sort of incident at all. These facts are not in dispute.

I'm impressed, though, at how instinctively you twist the fact situations into what they are not, by cherry picking only what supports your fixation. You are an excellent illustration of how these events happen - you see what you expect to see. Even when the facts are known, you see only those you expect to see.

 

Oh, just stop mimicking chubby checker and twisting his words. You darn good and well that that is NOT what he means.

 

officers are sprayed with OC as part of certification to use it. They need to know the effects when it hits them because it often does. Officer sprays naked man is a better headline than officer kills unarmed naked man.

 

Being held accountable to a higher degree does not matter, someone is not being held accountable at all. Cops can and do violate peoples civil rights and the vast majority of the time they are not held accountable. For the most part, prosecutors, courts, and internal affairs overwhelmingly take the side of the cop. Even when a case is won, it is the taxpayers that end up being punished while the cop mostly gets to keep his job. What punishment that the cop that choked Garner got? He got desk duty during the investigation (that is the only thing I was able to find). The guy that killed Brown? We'll never truly know if what he did was criminal because the case will never go to trial (the prosecutor made sure of that). Read up on the case of David Brisard (Indianapolis) and all of the hoops that it took to get a conviction (I find it hard to believe that the faulty blood draw and mishandling of the physical evidence was unintentional).

The guy was naked and unarmed why was the cop's weapon even drawn? Was SOP being followed? I don't know the answer to the first question and I imagine that most in this thread don't either. The cynic in me says that it has the appearance that the cop had no intention of drawing upon his non-lethal subdual training. After all, It is easier to put a bullet in somebody than to wrestle them.

 

Best he could find to continue his "this only happens to blacks" routine.

 

Is it wrong if they did ?

It's wrong to shoot because of it, but I hope you're not trying to judge them on their internal feelings.

I never took you for that kind of lib.

 

It appears as tho you just dislike cops in general. Please show me the statistics you claim where civil liberties are constantly being violated with no punishment. Maybe just maybe what you think is wrong and illegal really isnt.

With garner, the choke hold isn't what killed him his own medical conditions did. He was a walking time bomb. He resisted arrest , failed to comply. The officers had to fo something yo get him down do he cold be arrested. BTW way, if you can speak you can breath so he wasn't being choked.

Officer Wilson didn't go to court becuase there was nothing to go to court over. Even after the grand jury fid not indict eric holder took it upon himself to do a federal investigation and same up with nothing!

Since details of this makes man case are scarce please tell me at what point was the gun drawn? More importantly with your vast wisdom of police defensive tactics what should the cop have done

 

Tactically speaking it would be stupid to use at this point. FYI officers don't care about headlines the next day, we care about going home tonite. People have this retarded view that becuase a man is naked and n mentally handicapped tgat it makes him harmless and easy to control

 

This is such a delicious illustration of the mentality we're seeing. If Garner had not been able to speak, the cop couldn't have known he was being choked, so the cop wouldn't have been responsible. But they guy WAS able to speak, therefore he wasn't being choked, therefore the cop did nothing wrong. Heads I win, tails you lose.

 

I can see your reason for concern on number 1, personally with your adrenaline going in the moment I don't think the cop cares about race.

As for 2, I personally hate the fact people can spend days, weeks, and months Monday morning qb events that the officer had less then seconds to decide his actions.

 

Not all people, of course. Some people recognize that if a man is naked and handicapped and you gun him down, he will no longer represent even a potential threat. Can't be too careful in police work, don't you know.

 

So people are angry becuase he was choked to death, but he wasn't choked at all..... and your still angry about it? Facts suck huh?

 

But that is the central point. The cop only had a couple seconds to decide on the appropriate course of action. He had to integrate his experiences, his observations, and his expectations and assessment all at once and do something RIGHT NOW. The need to react instantly brings out the underlying attitudes as surely as liquor. It's not that the cop cares about race, it's the fact that race influenced the secretions of the adrenal glands in the first place.

In all of these cases, from this guy to Timor Rice to Crawford and multiple others, the cop on the scene had to react to the threat he perceived. The question being asked here is, how accurate were those perceptions? In both the Rice and Crawford cases, the perceptions were TOTALLY wrong, wildly wrong. Yet the cop with the gun did what he thought was necessary. What made him think opening fire in those cases and others was necessary? In comparable cases where the cop and the suspect are the same race, according to what I've read, the necessity to shoot first and ask questions later isn't nearly as urgent.

 

Most people who watched the video are under the impression that Garner's apprehension was more aggressive than necessary. Starting with the fact that the entire confrontation was a product of a political policy of harrassment.

Garner died as a direct result of this confrontation. It wasn't a coincidence. But that fact doesn't matter, does it? Even with your face rubbed in it, you can't see! No matter WHAT happened, the cop was right and Garner deserved to die!

 

Your speculation is not fact.

Please show this policy you speak of.
Garner died of his own medical issues.