bbauska

Do you consider the citizen has some culpability in these situations?

Every situation has to be evaluated based on the evidence.
In the case of Garner, the evidence - that is the video evidence I've seen - shows that there was no need to put him in a choke hold. Plus, the hold itself was not allowed by the NYPD regulations.
And there was no probable cause to arrest him. (No "loose" cigarettes were found on his person, so he was doing nothing illegal when he was confronted and immediately accosted.)

I wonder if the police had known they were being video taped if they would have behaved towards Garner differently? (The use of body cameras lowering incidents suggests that a police officers behavior does change when they know they are being recorded.)
I wonder if police officers act with impunity because the system and culture has allowed them to believe they largely possess impunity?

And I do believe that there is a real difference between how police interact with people of color . Here's a thought provoking editorial starting with a thought provoking picture.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -face.html

In California it is not lawful, except for certain enumerated exceptions, for a police officer to arrest someone for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer's presence. A police officer can also accept custody of a suspect after a citizens arrest by someone who witnessed the misdemeanor crime . Arresting someone based on some informal complaint from business owners...wow. The Eric Garner case could not have happened in California--not in the way it did. They might want to think about changing their laws regarding misdemeanor arrests.

rickyp wrote:Fate

In any event, you have an excessively simplistic idea of what the job entails. You also don't understand the training. Actually, you don't understand much

.

I've said that the pay should be higher in order to attract the best candidates. That the training needs to be far more comprehensive and encompass far greater education in dealing with people through non-violent means. You've already said this was how you dealt with most situations...and have agreed that it is preferable. No?

Yes, but I accomplished this without either of those. It's my nature. I prefer negotiating my way through life rather than forcing it--one of the reasons I like Diplomacy.

However, I'm not sure money is going to solve it. You can already make more out of college with a department like LAPD than you can in most private sector work. Yet, who signs up for it? Not as many as you'd think. Plus, the hiring grid is not what it should be. They're more concerned with "what" you are than "who" you are. That's the wrong approach. Red and yellow, black and white, is a nice lyric, but it's not the way to hire police officers.

Your (sic) the one who's arguing that the current training and candidate pool is good enough.

I believe the pool is good enough. I believe the training is not what it should be and I've said so. When you retain people who lie because they are the "right" color and/or gender, your training is not what it should be. When you graduate people who are 60-80 lbs overweight, your training is not what it should be. When you graduate people who cannot write coherently, your training is not what it should be.

BUT, it is not a Department's job to teach people how to write or to get them in shape. It is not their responsibility to instill honesty. It is their responsibility to not hire or fire such candidates--those who are physically unfit, who are poor writers, or who will lie when under pressure.

It is the hiring and retention practices that are the primary problem.

Which indicates that your idea of the job complexities and difficulties is actually more simplistic.

Sure, because you're drawing on your vast expertise. How many officers have you managed? How many stressful situations have you handled? How many lives have you saved?

Please. Do tell!

And you seem to have made the case that whatever the current pay rates, its good enough and attracting just the right kinds of candidates...

Sure, if you remove the politics.

I'd like to go right back to the Garner situation. We don't know what the plan of the officers was, which is a shame. I would like to read their testimonies. With that said, I know a few things with a fair amount of certainty: 1) this was not a race-based situation. Again, the on-scene supervisor was Black. I'm sure she didn't view this situation as "it's only a Black life"; 2) we also know if they had a plan, it was not a very good one; 3) we also know that the supervisor did not properly assess the situation. If she was paying attention, her focus would have been on Garner's safety as he did not appear to represent (at any point) a direct threat to the officers; 4) we know Garner resisted arrest. He refused to comply. 5) We know that the officer behind Garner went high, grabbing Garner around the neck. We know that contributed to Garner's death. That was an unnecessary (and poor) tactical choice, which the sergeant did nothing to correct. If anyone is accountable for his death, it is Garner (for refusing to comply while being in such poor health), the sergeant (for incompetence), and the officer (for poor tactics). However, the idea that this is a crime is not credible. It was a combination of poor judgment on the part of everyone involved.

With the right focus and good supervision, Garner would be alive. Is the sergeant qualified for her position? Maybe. Based on her performance in this situation alone, she should be demoted and/or fired. The officer who grabbed Garner around the neck? Same thing.

This was a non-emergent situation. They had time to form a plan before they contacted Garner. This was lousy police work. Period.

Moreover, you have said that states should forgo federal money that might be used to train officers or improve officers pay ... in order to protect the notion of states rights.

It's actually in the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, with Federal money comes Federal strings. No municipality wants to surrender control over their police department. That's why there are so many departments: people want a say in how their police operate.

How does this address the improvement in police standards? Or don't you care about that the standard of policing improving everywhere?
Just asking

If municipalities want to invest more in their police forces, they ought to do so. The Federal government is not some magical pot of money. It is drawn from taxpayers. When that money goes to DC, it is skimmed and a portion returned. Much better for local governments to do this themselves.

rickyp wrote:Every situation has to be evaluated based on the evidence.

Excellent point! So, you will abide by it, I'm sure.

In the case of Garner, the evidence - that is the video evidence I've seen - shows that there was no need to put him in a choke hold.

Hmm, other than pundits I'm not sure who calls it a "choke hold."

Plus, the hold itself was not allowed by the NYPD regulations.

If you are correct, then he should be discipline for violating regulations.

And there was no probable cause to arrest him. (No "loose" cigarettes were found on his person, so he was doing nothing illegal when he was confronted and immediately accosted.)

Actually, this is irrelevant (as freeman3 implies). They received a complaint. What we don't know is if someone was "willing to sign" a private person's arrest.

Illustration: we would often get "disturbing the peace" calls. Sometimes, it was for loud music, etc. In some cases, perhaps a repeat call (for example), we would ask if they were willing to sign a citizen's arrest form. Otherwise, it was kind of pointless to respond over and over again when our "peace" cannot be disturbed (on-duty officers cannot be the victims of disturbing the peace). If someone was "willing," then we had leverage with the offending party.

In Garner's case, I don't know that we know if one of the local businesses was "willing." We do know they called. We do know Garner had a history of doing exactly what they complained about. That's "probable cause." Now, I don't know the NYC statute, but if it's like CA, they probably had a "willing" party before they contacted Garner. For the record, "loose cigarettes" in an of themselves are not a crime--so their presence or absence is a bit of a red herring. For example, he could have sold them all, thrown them away when he saw a troop of cops coming, etc.

I wonder if the police had known they were being video taped if they would have behaved towards Garner differently? (The use of body cameras lowering incidents suggests that a police officers behavior does change when they know they are being recorded.)
I wonder if police officers act with impunity because the system and culture has allowed them to believe they largely possess impunity?

What is the "evidence" that the officers in this situation acted as if nothing would happen to them?

Do you suppose none of them were worried at being under Grand Jury investigation? If so, do you have any evidence? Isn't that the standard you set when you said "Every situation has to be evaluated based on the evidence?"

And I do believe that there is a real difference between how police interact with people of color . Here's a thought provoking editorial starting with a thought provoking picture.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -face.html

That's certainly less than "evidence."

Furthermore, that white woman appears to be committing battery on the officer. I suspect if that was a male, regardless of color, that officer would be responding differently. My guess is that he is not afraid she is going to take him out. If it was a guy of the same size as the officer, I think he would take a different stance.

Now, I am going to demonstrate how idiotic that op-ed is by quoting it:

I know that I cannot carry a gun in public and neither can my sons, even if it is a toy. If I lay prone on an open highway and point an assault rifle at a federal agent, my next stop would be federal custody or the nearest county morgue. Open carry laws are not meant for me. The rules are different. It’s what it means to be black in this country.

She produces no "evidence" for her first claim about carrying a gun.

The second claim about an assault rifle . . . let me be clear: when someone, anyone, points a gun at a cop they should thank God if they are not immediately shot and killed. No officer can read a mind. What they can do is look at actions and respond. When someone points a weapon at them, they do not have time to ask:

1. "Gee, am I certain that's a real gun? If not, I better not shoot."

2. "Is that loaded? If not, I better not shoot."

3. "Does she really intend to shoot me? After all, women don't shoot cops. So, maybe I better not shoot."

If you point an assault weapon at officers, you should have all your affairs in order. If they do not kill you, it doesn't mean they should not have.

bbauska wrote:Do you consider the citizen has some culpability in these situations?

Some, but remember who has the power. Who has the power as vested in the State? the cop(s). Who in these cases has the better weaponry, training, backup etc?

In Garner's case, who was in control of the situation, once Garner was in a hold?

The greater the influence, power, control in a situation, the greater the responsibility for the outcome, surely?

I did make the assumption that the officers arrested Garner without being authorized by a citizens arrest. The New York penal code does not appear to require it, though.
http://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article140.htm#c140.05

Doctor Fate wrote:

Moreover, you have said that states should forgo federal money that might be used to train officers or improve officers pay ... in order to protect the notion of states rights.

It's actually in the Bill of Rights.

Which part of the Bill of Rights precludes Federal involvement in policing?

Bear in mind that the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments apply to all levels of government, but primarily the Federal, and govern what can be done by law enforcement.

Furthermore, with Federal money comes Federal strings. No municipality wants to surrender control over their police department. That's why there are so many departments: people want a say in how their police operate.

Yes, and it means a patchwork of different standards and applications, making the systems complicated and inequitable. It's also ridiculously inefficient, especially when jurisdictions overlap.

The argument seems to be that as local government is power hungry, it should be left alone...

If municipalities want to invest more in their police forces, they ought to do so. The Federal government is not some magical pot of money. It is drawn from taxpayers. When that money goes to DC, it is skimmed and a portion returned. Much better for local governments to do this themselves.

And what if they don't, and this causes problems for neighbouring municipalities? Or can't because they are bankrupted?

Here's the point--filling out a citizens arrest form means the citizen has been interviewed and indicates a certain level of seriousness on the part of the citizen. It is just not clear what the police officers were relying on to effect the arrest. We know that local owners complained but that is about all we know.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Moreover, you have said that states should forgo federal money that might be used to train officers or improve officers pay ... in order to protect the notion of states rights.

It's actually in the Bill of Rights.

Which part of the Bill of Rights precludes Federal involvement in policing?

Bear in mind that the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments apply to all levels of government, but primarily the Federal, and govern what can be done by law enforcement.

See the 10th. If you don't believe that, you have to wonder: why are there State laws? Why was not law enforcement a Federal responsibility from the beginning?

Furthermore, with Federal money comes Federal strings. No municipality wants to surrender control over their police department. That's why there are so many departments: people want a say in how their police operate.

Yes, and it means a patchwork of different standards and applications, making the systems complicated and inequitable. It's also ridiculously inefficient, especially when jurisdictions overlap.

That's the USA.

The argument seems to be that as local government is power hungry, it should be left alone...

Oh, mercy.

Local government is the most responsive. Imagine if we had a Federal police force. Getting change at a local level would be more difficult.

If municipalities want to invest more in their police forces, they ought to do so. The Federal government is not some magical pot of money. It is drawn from taxpayers. When that money goes to DC, it is skimmed and a portion returned. Much better for local governments to do this themselves.

And what if they don't, and this causes problems for neighbouring municipalities? Or can't because they are bankrupted?

This is what I now dub "whatiffery." There are an uncountable number of "what if" scenarios.

Most cities, towns and counties care about their own quality of life. If they don't, then what's the point? If the local governments don't have the money, then the State ought to step in or make some sort of arrangement. It is a State matter . . . unless an abuse of civil rights is demonstrated.

freeman3 wrote:Here's the point--filling out a citizens arrest form means the citizen has been interviewed and indicates a certain level of seriousness on the part of the citizen. It is just not clear what the police officers were relying on to effect the arrest. We know that local owners complained but that is about all we know.

Spot on.

As a side note: in CA, we could refuse to arrest people for all sorts of crimes. In fact, there was no law requiring me to arrest someone for murder (now, I would not waive that opportunity--I'm just saying it was not a law). There were 3 exceptions: intentionally causing a train wreck, domestic abuse, and . . . citizen's arrests. In fact, it was a FELONY for me to refuse to accept a signed citizen's arrest.

Here’s the precise language the NYPD Patrol Guide uses to describe the maneuver, which it has banned for two decades:

“A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.

”

Here's a link to the video of the incident. Starting from after Grenier had been approached by police after he broke up a fight by two other men. (Blessed are the peacemakers, right?)

http://time.com/3618092/eric-garner-cho ... nd-jury-2/

In grand jury testimony, Pantaleo says he merely used a maneuver that had been taught to him in police academy. According to the New York Times, Pantaleo says he hooked his arm under one of Garner’s arms as he wrapped his other arm around Garner’s body

Does one believe the testimony, or the pictures?

Fate

What is the "evidence" that the officers in this situation acted as if nothing would happen to them

?
The video evidence?
Here's the thing Fate. Even after the man had stopped breathing, they did nothing to revive him. They kept him in hand cuffs.
What part of that is right and proper police work?
When you compare the video evidence, versus the testimony and the explanations of the officers and apologists it reminds me of that famous saying,
"who you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

I don't think, Fate that you and I actually disagree much on the need for better training. I do think that a community should be policed by a reflection of itself. For that reason I think it is important that people of color get to encounter black police officers with frequency. If that has lead to a decline in the quality of candidate the question becomes why? Are you claiming that blacks or Hispanics are unqualified because their intelligence, or schooling? Are you claiming black candidates lie with greater frequency than white?
Surely that is a systemic failing if true. But I find it hard to believe that your claims are true or can be backed up with evidence.

By the way, the full video that is presented shows an awful lot of obese NY cops. Maybe they should be on foot patrol more often than what you claim is the arduous task of riding in a car?

Fate

Local government is the most responsive. Imagine if we had a Federal police force. Getting change at a local level would be more difficult.

I think you are right about local government being most responsive.
If it wants to be.
Many state governments did not want to enforce an end to segregation. Being responsive to the will of the white majority in their states.

But even with that reservation, I was suggesting that national standards be applied and that the states and local departments adhere to them This is no different than in many industries, and codes. Local enforcement of national standards. There's nothing to stop a municipality from going above the minimum standard.

rickyp wrote:Here’s the precise language the NYPD Patrol Guide uses to describe the maneuver, which it has banned for two decades:

“A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.

”

Here's a link to the video of the incident. Starting from after Grenier had been approached by police after he broke up a fight by two other men. (Blessed are the peacemakers, right?)

http://time.com/3618092/eric-garner-cho ... nd-jury-2/

In grand jury testimony, Pantaleo says he merely used a maneuver that had been taught to him in police academy. According to the New York Times, Pantaleo says he hooked his arm under one of Garner’s arms as he wrapped his other arm around Garner’s body

Does one believe the testimony, or the pictures?

I'll answer your ridiculous presumption with a question: if someone (a grown man and a police officer) was trying to "choke" you out, do you suppose, in your expert opinion, you could say, "I can't breathe" eleven times? Eleven times? Try it on one breath while applying modest pressure against your own Adam's apple (if you can do that without hurting yourself).

I submit it's not possible. So, I think it is clear: Garner was not "choked."

Was the cause of death asphyxiation? From wiki:

On August 1, Garner's death was found by the New York City Medical Examiner's Office to be a result of "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police."[24] Asthma, heart disease, and obesity were cited as contributing factors.[67] There was no damage to the windpipe or neckbones.

No damage to the windpipe or neckbones? What kind of "chokehold" is that?

And, having just watched the video again, I see Garner failing, even as he goes to the ground, to comply with instructions. They got one hand behind his back and he would not put the other (his right) behind his back. Again, the tactics were terrible--but Garner resisted arrest.

Fate

What is the "evidence" that the officers in this situation acted as if nothing would happen to them

?
The video evidence?

What evidence is that? Did they flex? Did they shout, "Ain't nothing you can to us! WE are the almighty police?"

Really, what in the video is evidence that they knew nothing would happen to them?

Here's the thing Fate. Even after the man had stopped breathing, they did nothing to revive him. They kept him in hand cuffs.
What part of that is right and proper police work?

We're not trained paramedics. However, I don't think, and have said repeatedly, these officers deserve medals for tactical prowess--or for their thinking and planning.

However, that is not evidence that they acted as though they were immune from prosecution.

When you compare the video evidence, versus the testimony and the explanations of the officers and apologists it reminds me of that famous saying,
"who you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

Which is a mischaracterization of what Marx said, but you digress.

Here's the problem. You are emoting. You have no idea why the grand jury did not think there was reasonable cause to believe a crime had been committed, but you want to presume they are wrong or the DA bamboozled them. You have no evidence of either.

The video shows a non-compliant criminal. Yes, criminal.

It also shows cops who used poor tactics. That is a matter of discipline and training, not a criminal matter unless you can show they acted in bad faith.

I don't think, Fate that you and I actually disagree much on the need for better training. I do think that a community should be policed by a reflection of itself. For that reason I think it is important that people of color get to encounter black police officers with frequency. If that has lead to a decline in the quality of candidate the question becomes why? Are you claiming that blacks or Hispanics are unqualified because their intelligence, or schooling? Are you claiming black candidates lie with greater frequency than white?

NYPD is more than 50% minority. So, deal with that.

Surely that is a systemic failing if true. But I find it hard to believe that your claims are true or can be backed up with evidence.

Hispanics and Blacks are more likely to drop out of high school or not graduate. That has nothing to do with intellect.

As for the rest of your ridiculous straw men, well, I'll be kind and just say they are ridiculous. Show where I have said those things. I'm not going to try and justify things I've not said.

By the way, the full video that is presented shows an awful lot of obese NY cops. Maybe they should be on foot patrol more often than what you claim is the arduous task of riding in a car?

If you think being a patrolman is easy, get off your butt and go do it.

I proposed, years ago, physical standards for officers--annual PT tests, similar to the military. The union defeated that idea. You like unions, yes? Thank them for fat cops.

http://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe ... k_you_can/

his is a phrase I heard Peter King say in the wake of Eric Garner's death and I feel it's something that everyone in our profession needs to be aware of. The myth of "If you can speak you can breathe".
I know I have heard it said twice by officers I work with, whom I both corrected. One of them actually argued with me about it until I was able to get Fire and Rescue to tell them they are wrong. The LAPD killed a man because they ignored his pleas and told him that if he could speak he could breathe. THIS IS FALSE!!!!!!!!! And clearly officers nationwide are not being properly trained to know that it is false. Knowing that this myth persists, and knowing I have heard actual officers repeat it in my presence, I felt it needed to be addressed.
Hearing that phrase come out of someone's mouth always upsets me, because it can easily lead to a preventable death.So let's explore why this is false, because anyone who comes up against a situation like this needs to realize that You CAN speak if you cannot breathe!!
This is true for multiple reasons, so let's explore them:
The lungs have what are called "Volumes" and "Capacities". The link describes all of them. For our purposes, you need to understand these two phrases: Functional Reserve Capacity (the amount of air left in the lungs after a normal exhalation) and Expiratory Reserve Volume (the amount of air you can still force out of your lungs after a normal exhalation).
When you take a normal breath you breathe in and out you are breathing about 500ml of air. After breathing out, you are left with ~2400ml of air inside your lungs, this is the Functional Reserve Capacity. If you try to force out as much air as possible, you can still force out ~1200ml more air. This is the Expiratory Reserve Volume. This is air you are able to speak with even if you cannot take a normal breath. Important Note: Notice that the Expiratory Reserve Volume is more than twice the size of a normal breath. That is a lot of air you are able to force out, and a lot of speaking you can do even if you can't breathe.
The lungs work on negative pressure. So, your lungs, when you breathe in, are at a lower pressure than the outside air. This draws the air into them. This is caused by your diaphragm and intercostal muscles. Your lungs are very elastic, and will move back to their normal size during exhalation. This is where the problem begins for officers. If you are kneeling on a suspect, or you have them handcuffed on the ground so that they are on their chest, there is a strong possibility that you can cut off their ability to breathe. Once the lungs begin to exhale, they collapse, but if you they are being pressed down on by body weight, they may not be able to re-expand. They then continue to collapse, forcing out the Functional Reserve Capacity of air, but not drawing in a new breath. So, your suspect may be pleading for breath, they may actually be incapable of drawing one in, and the reason is you. If someone is saying they cannot breathe, you need to believe them, because you might be killing them. Furthermore, during any kind of physical altercation, that person may be breathing deeply and rapidly, making their lungs collapse faster when you are kneeling on them or holding them on the ground.
Asthma. Some of you may be saying "Well, the guy who died in LAPD's care had asthma, that wasn't the officer's fault or the jail's fault." Oh yes it was. If someone is telling you they have asthma and they can't breathe, you need to believe them. Asthma is a constriction of the airways, no different than being strangled. They will still be able to speak and they will still be dying slowly. It took 30 minutes for that man to die, and that was entirely preventable.
Demonstrations:
First Demonstration: Take a normal breath in and then a normal breath out. Then, after exhaling, force out as much air as you possibly can. Even after doing this, you will find you are able to speak. I am able to speak for about 5 - 10 seconds afterwards, in short, wheezing, gaspy words, but I can speak. If you don't inhale at this point, you will begin to suffocate, but you will still be capable of speech even as you are dying. IMPORTANT EDIT: And that's not to say a person will only be able to speak for a few seconds, they could speak for minutes while being unable to draw a breath in. Keep in mind, you are purposely forcing out the Expiratory Reserve Volume during this demonstration, but a suspect/inmate might not be. They may be on the ground, unable to breathe in, but entirely capable of speech for minutes as they slowly die.
Second Demonstration:It is much easier to force air out than it is to draw air in. To demonstrate, take a normal breath (not deep) in and out. After you exhale, pinch your nose shut with one hand and hold your other hand very tightly over your mouth. When you breathe in you will either be unable to breathe in or you will only breathe in a sliver of air. But if you force the air out, you will note that it is able to come out past your hand, it will cause your hand and fingers to vibrate, and there is still a good chunk of air in your lungs despite you having exhaled. Now, imagine your fingers and hand are your Larynx (voice box). That's how speech is still possible in a situation where someone is being suffocated.
Final Thoughts
So why are you suffocating if so much air is still in your lungs? Part of the problem is that the air left over in the lungs after exhalation is not oxygenated, so your lungs are full of CO2 gas. This air is useless to your blood, so even though your bronchioles are full of air, you are still suffocating to death.
Obesity: Not Everyone Has The Same Lung Capacity: There are factors that can make a person have a smaller lung capacity than someone else. These factors include:
1. Being obese
2. Being a female
3. Living at low altitudes
4. Being a smoker
While the third and fourth are probably not terribly important for our purposes, the first two certainly are. This is important because not only does an obese person have smaller lung capacity, they also can have their lungs fail to expand due to their own body weight if they are lying on the ground facedown. An obese person is at extreme risk of suffocation in any instance where their airways are being blocked or where they are cuffed and on the ground. Don't @#$! around if they say they can't breathe, they're probably not lying.
Personal Experience - I have personally been in this situation before. After I had the person handcuffed and on the ground for about 20 seconds, they began to wheeze. This is an immediate symptom of them not being able to breathe. I asked if he was having trouble breathing. I let him stand up, get some breaths, and then sit down. If I had simply knelt on his back during this time, I could have killed him. Instead, I eased off, stood him up to get him some air, and all was well.
So remember, when you hear someone say "If you can speak you can breathe" know that they are full of shit. Believe the person who is claiming they can't breathe, because otherwise you could end up killing someone.

Fate

how where I have said those things. I'm not going to try and justify things I've not said.

Also Fate

When you retain people who lie because they are the "right" color and/or gender, your training is not what it should be. When you graduate people who are 60-80 lbs overweight, your training is not what it should be. When you graduate people who cannot write coherently, your training is not what it should be.