It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chokehold Cop Sued Three Times by Blacks for Constitutional Rights Violations

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

You mean, this is two things we agree on now? There must be a glitch somewhere...



originally posted by: seeker1963
Thus the reason, the bigger picture of the police state is being covered up by making this a racial issue!


I think the bigger picture of the police state DOES exist and it DOES need our attention. No one is denying that. You're right. That is not about race. And it's real.

There is, however, a smaller picture, too. That of the targeted focus of police departments (and the cover up and protection of them by the justice systems) all over the country toward black men. This could be one reason why there are so many black men in prison in this country.

Both problems exist. The smaller picture is what I'm talking about here. Notice all men who sued were black and doing nothing but walking/driving/standing while black.



By making it about race, we in effect ignore the issues such as this, where we are all being treated as the enemy!


The issue we're talking about IS about race. There is the larger issue and I don't ignore it. There are many threads about it. But this is a subset of that larger issue that also needs attention. And now. Maybe it will even pave the way for the larger issue to be solved.




posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I believe the issue got so large because 'we' ignored it for so long, because it didn't affect 'us'. I think racism is a form of mental illness, a type of psychopathy so in that context, I think 'they' are running out of prey (psychopaths are predators regardless of how their disease manifests, it's always predatory) and now have moved on to the next most vulnerable.

I believe that we can't fix it til we address the core... the psychopathy involved and how it's manifested.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Seems the answer is "Yes" (not too sure about unions)...


You can be sure of the New York City Police Union as well.

Their comment was the grand jury was 'just and right'.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I was reading some official NYPD forums... not pretty.

ETA: Well I guess that's subjective... to me it wasn't pretty.
edit on 12/7/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

I was reading some official NYPD forums... not pretty.

ETA: Well I guess that's subjective... to me it wasn't pretty.


Just to be clear, I was quoting the Police Union, the New York City Police Department is doing an internal investigation that the Union does not agree with. The Union is very vociferous when it comes to questioning any wrong doing on the part of the officers and if you look at the track record for the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) the police are typically exonerated in most instances.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I believe the issue got so large because 'we' ignored it for so long, because it didn't affect 'us'. I think racism is a form of mental illness, a type of psychopathy so in that context, I think 'they' are running out of prey (psychopaths are predators regardless of how their disease manifests, it's always predatory) and now have moved on to the next most vulnerable.

I believe that we can't fix it til we address the core... the psychopathy involved and how it's manifested.


The psychopath is well known.

But how would a "society" solve the problem?

Some say psychopathy is not curable.

So how do we "control" the whole thing?



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Honestly dude, I've gone over the whole situation in my head many times, weighed up the whole scenario and have decided just leave it alone. I live in a small town and as long as they just let me be from now on, its all good as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, I was messing with the copper that originally approached me big time! I was letting the female copper put my left arm behind my back, but not letting the copper that originally approached me restrain my right arm. Well bagging him out by saying, "Even this little female can restrain me, just imagine if I was an actual criminal, you wouldn't have a chance mate!".

He was just an idiot with a major Nepoleon complex who probably won't even last as a police officer for very long. Like I said, it was just a novelty occurrence. It kind of reminded me of an episode of 'Cops' or something that I found kind of exciting, lol.

But, if I had to put up with that kind of treatment constantly, like the black community has to, then I would obviously start to take it personally, just like anyone else would.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah I'm aware. Unions can become corrupt as anything can. Not enough people take responsibility for their own backyard. Just to be clear though and a bit off-topic... that doesn't mean unions should be done away with.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

Just to be clear though and a bit off-topic... that doesn't mean unions should be done away with.


I fully feel that all public unions should be outlawed, they hold the taxpayer hostage unlike private sector unions.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
This whole issue sucks for many reasons. I'll list my least favorite ones, and things I think can be solutions for each:

1. I have an issue with the idea that a grand jury decided not to indict an officer who killed someone through the use of an illegal choke hold. I don't care what is going on, last time I checked, the NYPD had outlawed restraints like that some 30 or so years ago. Even if you can't make a case for murder (which it wasn't) or manslaughter (which would be to make an example of the cop), one could easily make a case for criminally negligent homicide. As that is the case, I amazes me how the GJ decided not to even let that case go to court with that charge.

The solution to this is to do away with the grand jury model to begin with. If that is going too far for some people, then at the very least, in situations like this, a special prosecutor should be brought in to bring the case before the GJ, and their only purpose should be to achieve indictment, and let a jury of the people whom the officer is supposed to protect and serve decide his fate.

2. I have an even bigger issue with officers not carrying non-lethal methods of enforcement. From Wilson in Ferguson to Pantaleo in NYC, it seems to be that officers seem to have the option of whether or not to carry a tazer or not. Why the hell is that? I understand that tazers fail to work on something like 5% of the population, but that means it will work 95% of the time. In the 5% it doesn't work the first time, its a pretty safe bet that a second cycle will at the very least buy you time to make decision on what to do next.

The solution to this is pretty simple. EVERY officer should be required to carry and utilize non lethal enforcement whenever possible. Which leads me to my next issue.....

3. Why the hell don't officers have body cameras on their person at all times? All of these instances where cops state that they feared for their lives could easily be corroborated with video and audio evidence of the entire encounter. The problem is that currently, dead people don't talk, and as such we only have one story to go on and nobody who is going to tell a different side of the story.

Officers complain every time this issue is brought up.....they claim that it will negatively impact their ability to protect and serve because they will constantly have to think about whether or not their actions will get them in trouble instead of simply reacting to situations. That may well be true....unfortunately, I don't care about that. I know that sounds bad, but the reality is that if a cop would respond to a situation without a camera in a manner that would get them in trouble with a camera, then that cop needs to not be a cop. They are as big a danger to society as the criminals in my belief, because they can do their actions with the backing of the law. When those that are or are related to LEO's try to say that if you don't do the job, you shouldn't get a say, I simply want to reply by saying that I don't have to be a cop to know that the job is dangerous. Fully accepted. Unfortunately, just as I know that the job is dangerous, so did that person or their loved one who decided to join the police force. That having been said, we must stop allowing officers to use that inherent danger as an excuse for making poor decisions on the job, especially when they lead to the death of someone who didn't need to die. If these officers are wearing cameras, the evidence of what happened would easily support or refute their need to use force. If the situation warranted the use of force, then the cop who did so would be cleared and return to work. If not, then there would be the evidence to indict and bring charges. Either way, if someone ends up dead at the hands of a LEO, at least we would know what actually happened. To piggyback on that point, it boils down to this.....all of the men who died may have committed crimes prior to their interaction with the officers. None of those crimes, including resisting arrest (if you want to call any of these cases where that happened), comes with the penalty of death. As such, all of these men were denied their right to due process at the very least. That is a problem that cannot be allowed to continue.

4. Police officers who are involved in incidents where shootings or physical violence occurs are currently brought before a review board. The problem with that is that the board is comprised of other officers who are not too keen on telling a fellow officer they screwed up, so they usually come back with no result. Seriously?

To prevent this from happening any longer, there needs to be a group of people, preferably elected, who have no allegiance to the police department and oversee these investigations. Their ultimate allegiance would be to the citizenry, and because they would be elected, would be accountable if the citizens didn't feel that they were properly executing the duties of their position. This board would also be comprised of people who were NOT former law enforcement. I mean really, why bother with this panel of people if it is going to basically be the police review board to begin with?

Now to deal with another aspect of this issue.

I don't believe that race is a direct reason for any of these incidents. That said, I can say that I believe that indirectly it is a huge part of the problem. I don't think that any of the officers in question left the precinct that day wanting to kill a black man. That would be a case where race directly played a part in the situations. I do, however, believe that officers have a predisposition to contact and arrest black men on the premise that they are more likely to be doing something wrong. That is messed up on so many levels I don't want to make this post as long as it would need to be to address it...lol. Suffice it to say that until that underlying current is dealt with, these issues are going to continue to happen, and people will continue to defend the practice.

Sorry about the longwinded nature of the post, but I needed to get this off my chest. If you read all of this, thanks for hearing me out in advance.




top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join