Too much power?

[Dravin]

Potential? Sure, but then a parking ticket is potentially a misuse of power (severe or not depends on your mindset and the particulars). The more important question is if it is a misuse of power. What you're seeing is people react to the more important question rather than focusing on if it could be bad (mostly by saying they lack sufficient knowledge to answer the question).

Edited February 27, 2014 by Dravin

[Palerider]

Of course the media loves to only show or tell one side of a story as opposed to telling both sides.

[Leah]

Maybe 5 men were needed to bring him down . . . but 5 men on top of him and he isn't struggling for at least a minute and a half. Got it . . . As soon as he stop struggling they should have started thinking about backing off.

And you were there and you know what they were thinking, along with every other detail of the situation? You have a better grasp of it - based on a video - than the people who were there from beginning to end? You have magical powers that tell you that he was going to be compliant if released?

[Guest]

Local law enforcement buys tanks, armored personnel carriers, they have military gear . . .

Militarizing our law enforcement is a bad idea in my opinion also. Many appear to be being trained by local military units and yes it is alarming if you are thinking of the police force becoming a branch of the military if the government states that the need arises.

I don't understand this.

The Military and the Police are two completely different areas of jurisdiction. Especially in the US where you have a clear demarcation between Federal and State. The police force CANNOT beome a branch of the military even if Pres. Obama needs them. The only time that is possible is if there's Martial Law - and at that time, Pres. Obama will not be leader of the country anymore. And under Martial Law, it doesn't matter if your police has military gear or not, they will be under the Military.

Police having tanks, armored personnel carriers and military gear... sure. Especially if you're a border State. But, any funding for police equipment has to go through City or State budget approvals - all controlled by the voting public.

[pam]

If the police officers in this video were in the wrong...then consequences should be dealt with.

I just get so tired of blanket statements regarding police officers as being the bad guys.

As many have said, we are only seeing a video shot by the wife of the man and we are only seeing what happened after he was down on the ground.

Until an investigation is done....I'm giving all the benefit of the doubt.

[prisonchaplain]

The read on this case is somewhat bizzarre. One interesting fact though is that the department seems to be backing the officers, saying they were following protocols.

Oklahoma father dies in police encounter after mother slaps daughter - CNN.com

The call was for domestic violence, and I believe police are especially wary of these. The officers approached the father (it was the mother who had done the hitting--on her daughter). The father was allegedly uncooperative, and would not give identification.

There is an investigation, but according to this article, it could be months before a final report. The officers under investigation are on paid leave.

[EarlJibbs]

I don't understand this.

The Military and the Police are two completely different areas of jurisdiction. Especially in the US where you have a clear demarcation between Federal and State. The police force CANNOT beome a branch of the military even if Pres. Obama needs them. The only time that is possible is if there's Martial Law - and at that time, Pres. Obama will not be leader of the country anymore. And under Martial Law, it doesn't matter if your police has military gear or not, they will be under the Military.

Police having tanks, armored personnel carriers and military gear... sure. Especially if you're a border State. But, any funding for police equipment has to go through City or State budget approvals - all controlled by the voting public.

I don't agree with the OP reflection on Police as a whole or to the opinion about this video, I want to make that clear first off. I have police friends and Maybe I shouldn't have expounded on the OP and the military in this thread but I did. However, Police training with the military in joint training missions dressed in fatigues, using the same weapons, the same vehicles... this is uncomfortable to more than just a small fraction or at least it should be. If we need tanks, we have the military.

That being said, I believe that police cannot fight machine guns with hand guns, but where do we stop? I think the questions need to be asked. I like this article from CNN.

Are police becoming militarized? - CNN.com

The more the police act like a public service and less like a military unit is always better in my opinion. But I do not have the answers for how to do that with Urban society.

As far as saying, oh martial law is the only time the military can take control over the police force, this sounds fine until you realize the police force is outfitted just like the military. I just don't believe that is what they are for.

I realize where I stand with my thoughts is not popular and maybe in line more with the OP than what I state. But I'm glad that were friends none the less. :)

Edited February 27, 2014 by EarlJibbs

[mirkwood]

photographyisnotacrime.com. A completely biased anti-police site.

I watched the video on the CNN link. I assume it was the same as the biased site was down.

Only one side of the story is being told/shown.

yjacket: how many people have you put in handcuffs that do not want handcuffs put on? How many law enforcement training classes have you participated in? How many classes on arrest control, pepper spray, taser, or firearms (law enforcement) use have you participated in?

Let me ask this one again, and please respond: how many people have you put in handcuffs that do not want to have handcuffs put on?

Until you have, you should be careful in your opinions due to your lack of knowledge and experience. Notice I did not say you should not have an opinion, but your lack of knowledge and experience makes your opinions on the matter steeped in ignorance.

[Guest]

I don't agree with the OP reflection on Police as a whole or to the opinion about this video, I want to make that clear first off. I have police friends and Maybe I shouldn't have expounded on the OP and the military in this thread but I did. However, Police training with the military in joint training missions dressed in fatigues, using the same weapons, the same vehicles... this is uncomfortable to more than just a small fraction or at least it should be. If we need tanks, we have the military.

That being said, I believe that police cannot fight machine guns with hand guns, but where do we stop? I think the questions need to be asked. I like this article from CNN.

Are police becoming militarized? - CNN.com

The more the police act like a public service and less like a military unit is always better in my opinion. But I do not have the answers for how to do that with Urban society.

As far as saying, oh martial law is the only time the military can take control over the police force, this sounds fine until you realize the police force is outfitted just like the military. I just don't believe that is what they are for.

I realize where I stand with my thoughts is not popular and maybe in line more with the OP than what I state. But I'm glad that were friends none the less. :)

If the City needs tanks for Law Enforcement, it should not have to borrow from the Military. The Military does not respond to Civilian Disturbances unless a Military Personnel is involved in such Disturbance. Military does not enforce Civilian Law so much so that they have the USMJ... they don't get tried in Civilian Court.

Now, that said. I come from the Philippines. Muslim versus Christian wars still exist among the population. This is not the job for the Military unless it becomes a part of international terrorism. It is under the jurisdiction of Law Enforcement. But yes, these skirmishes may involve some terrorist cels hiding in the area, or they may not. So, the Military and the Police work hand in hand in these cases. But there is a clear distinction between Police and Military jurisdiction even if the Police and the Military are trained together, have the same firepower, and are going after the same people.

So, growing up in this environment, I do not grasp the sentiment of "militarizing the police". I don't even know what that means. If you have a law enforcement problem that requires military firepower - you have 2 choices: 1.) Equip your police with military firepower, 2.) Declare Martial Law. You don't call the military - that's not their jurisdiction - unless you're willing to declare Martial Law - which is EXACTLY how we ended up with Marcos, the Dictator who declared himself Military, for President while the Writ of Habeas Corpus got suspended. So it is silly to say - they can't have military firepower because then they'll look like the military. Yeah, go walk into Southern Philippines with your Police Baton. Don't forget to have your Last Rites done before you go.

Edited February 27, 2014 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

PC's signature is apropos here, I think. Most cops of my acquaintance are good people and consummate professionals--but in the period between the commencement of the stop and booking, they do have absolute power. It takes a special kind of person to deal with that power day-in and day-out and not do something really horrible with it.

Not too long ago, at a small municipality in Utah County that shall remain nameless, I was at court with a client in a criminal defense case. Client was out on bail. We were chatting about his case in a conference room while waiting for his hearing to start, when in strode two of that municipality's finest who immediately slapped cuffs on him for some thitherto-unknown peccadillo. The officers refused to tell him or me why they were arresting him (illegal), did not Mirandize him (illegal), refused my request to accompany him to their holding cell, and immediately began interrogating him (illegal). He spent the next forty-five minutes resisting demands for a confession, repeatedly insisting on counsel and invoking the 5th, while I raised Cain with the police department receptionist downstairs and the city prosecutor upstairs, before they finally gave up and let him go.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[EarlJibbs]

If the City needs tanks for Law Enforcement, it should not have to borrow from the Military. The Military does not respond to Civilian Disturbances unless a Military Personnel is involved in such Disturbance. Military does not enforce Civilian Law so much so that they have the USMJ... they don't get tried in Civilian Court.

Now, that said. I come from the Philippines. Muslim versus Christian wars still exist among the population. This is not the job for the Military unless it becomes a part of international terrorism. It is under the jurisdiction of Law Enforcement. But yes, these skirmishes may involve some terrorist cels hiding in the area, or they may not. So, the Military and the Police work hand in hand in these cases. But there is a clear distinction between Police and Military jurisdiction even if the Police and the Military are trained together, have the same firepower, and are going after the same people.

So, growing up in this environment, I do not grasp the sentiment of "militarizing the police". I don't even know what that means. If you have a law enforcement problem that requires military firepower - you have 2 choices: 1.) Equip your police with military firepower, 2.) Declare Martial Law. You don't call the military - that's not their jurisdiction - unless you're willing to declare Martial Law - which is EXACTLY how we ended up with Marcos, the Dictator who declared himself Military, for President while the Writ of Habeas Corpus got suspended. So it is silly to say - they can't have military firepower because then they'll look like the military. Yeah, go walk into Southern Philippines with your Police Baton. Don't forget to have your Last Rites done before you go.

Unfortunately not all of the equipment comes from the police department however or are "voter approved". The Military "gifts" items to the police departments. I know that since I am making these claims I must give references, but I am not going to dig everything up right now. I will give reference to a few articles that reflect what I am saying however, feel free to read them. The military grade weaponry in a lot of police forces is real.

Drones, Tanks, and Grenade Launchers: Coming Soon to a Police Department Near You | John W. Whitehead

Military Surplus Diverted To Police Departments With Little Oversight

I have already stated that I don't think that our police force should combat machine guns with pistols. they need to be equipped. But are we really at the stage of tanks? Maybe its more a sign of our times than it is conspiracy. But what need do police have of tanks, grenade launchers, military-grade helicopters, Ohio State University has a heavily-armored vehicle intended to withstand IED blasts...

Where is America Headed with this? I don't disagree with what you have said necessarily, but I think we should be more concerned than we are.

[NeuroTypical]

yjacket: how many people have you put in handcuffs that do not want handcuffs put on? How many law enforcement training classes have you participated in? How many classes on arrest control, pepper spray, taser, or firearms (law enforcement) use have you participated in?

Along these same lines, I volunteered for a Tazer demonstration, because I had heard both sides of the Tasers good/bad debate, and honestly couldn't make up my mind if I thought they were an appropriate tool for law enforcement use or not.

After the demonstration (I took a 4 second hit), my mind was made up. I fully support tasers as a tool for law enforcement. If someone needs to be physically restrained for their own safety or the safety of others, and they are resisting, I'd much rather they be tased into compliance, than clubbed or wrestled with or maced or shot.

Before my learning experience, I was ambivalent. After the experience, it's a foregone conclusion.

yjacket, I'd like to know your answer to mirkwood's questions as well. Knowing what your opinion is based on, will help me determine how much weight to put on it.

[mirkwood]

I have already stated that I don't think that our police force should combat machine guns with pistols. they need to be equipped. But are we really at the stage of tanks? Maybe its more a sign of our times than it is conspiracy. But what need do police have of tanks, grenade launchers, military-grade helicopters, Ohio State University has a heavily-armored vehicle intended to withstand IED blasts...

There are legitimate applications to everything you just listed, except tanks. Armored vehicles have a legitimate application as well and perhaps that is what is being referred to as opposed to a tank.

Recently we had a man with a gun who had already fired a shot as an officer approached his car. He was parked on a dirt road with large fields around him. There was no safe way for us to approach this man without exposing ourselves to potential gunfire. We have an armored vehicle (not a tank) and it was used to place officers up to the car. As it turned out, the male had shot himself as the initial officer approached, but we did not know that.

Grenade launchers are used to fire chemical munitions, usually tear gas, as well as a less lethal bean bag round. A few years ago we used this tool to take the murderer of a Reno police officer into custody, rather then use deadly force against him.

Helicopters have a ton of applications that provide safety to the citizens of the area they serve. Using the term "military" probably evokes an inaccurate picture of an apache helicopter. I can not think of the application in law enforcement for an apache...well I can, but not in any seriousness...

JAG, just to nitpick a little, Miranda is only required when questioning of a crime is going on, not a custodial arrest. I think you know that and will assume you mistyped. You are right, if he requested counsel and they continued to ask questions related to a crime, you will be successful in getting those statements tossed out.

[Quin]

I personally know

- 3 completely evil cops.

- Dozens of jerks

- Hundreds of really amazing men & women

Which is a pretty exceptional curve.

But it also stands to reason:

It's HARD to get on most police forces.

There is extensive testing, not just to earn the right to attempt to qualify, but then also once one does qualify. Entrance testing. Academy testing. Rookie/probationary periods of 1-3 years. Promotion testing.

One has to constantly prove ones self.

And, like in medicine & air traffic control, your past counts for squat.

Each new day, your head's on the block.

I grew up military, which is a quirky thing

In the military, you know you're going to be killing pretty decent people (the "enemy" is usually a guy you'd BBQ with, and let watch your kids, in a different time&place).

Police, otoh, you know you have to protect the worst of the worst.

I spar, time to time, with some LEO friends in super slow-mo/ tap out . Because my training kills and maims fast-fast-fast (we go for eyeballs and throats, groins and joints) while their training is increasing levels of force designed NOT to cause damage. It's super fun. Because I'm actually trying to kill them, while they attempt to restrain a person trying to kill them. Good training for both of us. Completely down and pinned by 3 guys I can still head but (to get my arms or torso released - it's practically impossible to fold onto someone when your world explodes in lights and blood as your nose/jaw/cheekbones break) and then can get the other two off super fast, if I bend at he waist and go for their guns, instead of trying to get away, so they have to roll away to keep me from their weapons. All it takes is Brian leaning down too close to read me my rights, or ask if I'm okay if I start faking an asthma attack. Haha. Got him! (Light tap means he has to let go, because IRL, I've just broken his face).

They deal with this kind of stuff all the time.

With people hopped up on either drugs or adrenaline (which really can lift cars off people, much less cops), so they feel no pain and have super-strength.

In addition to having to try and protect someone trying to kill you, and protect everyone else around them... They also have well intentioned idiots (like this guy

who are totally within their rights to be walkin around with an assault weapon open carry, but the police would also be completely STUPID not to stop and ascertain if dude carrying an assault rifle downtown is emotionally disturbed / about to start shooting people, or has a safe/well maintained weapon (people often smith their weapons in such a way they become very dangerous, like hair triggering).

As I've said... I know 3 completely evil cops, and dozens of jerks.

I don't have stars in my eyes surrounding LEOs.

But just because there are bad apples out there, it doesn't follow that the whole system is bad.

Q

[Palerider]

Today in St Louis or this morning a car was on fire. On duty Officer stops to help pull victims out of burning car and while helping someone fires at the officer. His vest is what kept him alive. You won't find a video of that on you tube. Let's just get all worked up over one side of a story before both sides are presented.

[Quin]

Unfortunately not all of the equipment comes from the police department however or are "voter approved". The Military "gifts" items to the police departments. I know that since I am making these claims I must give references, but I am not going to dig everything up right now. I will give reference to a few articles that reflect what I am saying however, feel free to read them. The military grade weaponry in a lot of police forces is real.

Drones, Tanks, and Grenade Launchers: Coming Soon to a Police Department Near You | John W. Whitehead

Military Surplus Diverted To Police Departments With Little Oversight

I have already stated that I don't think that our police force should combat machine guns with pistols. they need to be equipped. But are we really at the stage of tanks? Maybe its more a sign of our times than it is conspiracy. But what need do police have of tanks, grenade launchers, military-grade helicopters, Ohio State University has a heavily-armored vehicle intended to withstand IED blasts...

Where is America Headed with this? I don't disagree with what you have said necessarily, but I think we should be more concerned than we are.

I suspect the tanks &/or armored personnel carriers are for dealing with gangs & cartels & the like that use armor piercing rounds, as well as for single shooters with high velocity rounds (aka snipers).

Body armor just doesn't stand up to target rounds someone has filed into a pointy-point, much less professional rounds. Which gangs and cartels and individuals have and use. In order to subdue a drug house shooting those rounds, one has to actually get officers in range (if they don't just want to kill everyone from a safe distance, which they don't). Which means some serious armor plating to get close enough for less lethal options.

Q

[prisonchaplain]

I agree with most, who have said law enforcement deserves the benefit of the doubt. That said, most police departments have internal affairs because of the occasional bad act, and the rare bad actor. JAG's latest post suggest that sometimes the officers receive bad instructions.

Bottom line...I really try not to come up with opinions on these types of incidents until the after-action reports are issued. In most departments an internal investigation for a high-profile incident like this will be brutal. Innocent officers, doing their job, spend months feeling judged/blamed/discarded by the agency they serve. Even if they are exonerated, they sometimes never feel quite the same again.

[EarlJibbs]

There are legitimate applications to everything you just listed, except tanks. Armored vehicles have a legitimate application as well and perhaps that is what is being referred to as opposed to a tank.

Recently we had a man with a gun who had already fired a shot as an officer approached his car. He was parked on a dirt road with large fields around him. There was no safe way for us to approach this man without exposing ourselves to potential gunfire. We have an armored vehicle (not a tank) and it was used to place officers up to the car. As it turned out, the male had shot himself as the initial officer approached, but we did not know that.

Grenade launchers are used to fire chemical munitions, usually tear gas, as well as a less lethal bean bag round. A few years ago we used this tool to take the murderer of a Reno police officer into custody, rather then use deadly force against him.

Helicopters have a ton of applications that provide safety to the citizens of the area they serve. Using the term "military" probably evokes an inaccurate picture of an apache helicopter. I can not think of the application in law enforcement for an apache...well I can, but not in any seriousness...

JAG, just to nitpick a little, Miranda is only required when questioning of a crime is going on, not a custodial arrest. I think you know that and will assume you mistyped. You are right, if he requested counsel and they continued to ask questions related to a crime, you will be successful in getting those statements tossed out.

I appreciate your take on all of that Mirk.

[yjacket]

photographyisnotacrime.com. A completely biased anti-police site.

I watched the video on the CNN link. I assume it was the same as the biased site was down.

Only one side of the story is being told/shown.

yjacket: how many people have you put in handcuffs that do not want handcuffs put on? How many law enforcement training classes have you participated in? How many classes on arrest control, pepper spray, taser, or firearms (law enforcement) use have you participated in?

Let me ask this one again, and please respond: how many people have you put in handcuffs that do not want to have handcuffs put on?

Until you have, you should be careful in your opinions due to your lack of knowledge and experience. Notice I did not say you should not have an opinion, but your lack of knowledge and experience makes your opinions on the matter steeped in ignorance.

I'm going to . . . so I'm just a little offended at your tone . . . but that is okay :-)

I've never been a police officer, but I have had training on pepper spray, crowd control, firearms, tactical driving, and I've been in a hot war zone. I have a brother who served 2 tours of duty, one in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So please don't talk to me like I have a "lack of knowledge and experience". I've never been anti-police, in fact from my reading of the Rodney King incident the police officers were likely justified.

However, over the past 7 years or so I have become extremely concerned with the use of force by police. Not only the use of force, but the interrogation and the lead up to the actual use of force. Unless the officers feared for their lives (which is possible) causing death is IMO 100% unacceptable and unjustifiable. Even if this is normal procedure, if "normal procedure" can result in death, then it is unacceptable.

This IMO is probably what happened, they used pepper spray, he resisted they put him on the ground, the guy was heavy with 5 men on top of him and having been pepper sprayed he couldn't breath. I've been pepper sprayed as part of my training and I can easily see how having 5 men on top of you after being pepper sprayed would cause death.

I find several issues with this thread that personally worry me. I'll put this up front, my opinions are based on what I believe should be morally right, not necessarily what is legal or not legal.

1) From the beginning of the incident, is it reasonable for police to ask for identification? This is based upon what I've read happened and barring the dead man started something with the cops prior to them trying to arrest him. IMO, unless police had reasonable suspicion that the gentleman was the perpitrator of a crime, they had no reason to ask for ID. In addition, he should have been given adequete time to explain that he was not (i.e. no I didn't slap my daughter my wife did-at that point the officer has no right to ask for ID from him). That would have ended this whole mess right then and there.

2) I firmly believe in that for any force used against a citizen it must "always be proportional to the threat". Unless, the officers feared for their life, causing death is not proportional to the threat.

3) I am so incredible thankful that wars are not declared by generals and that laws are not written by police. It always takes someone with an outside perspective to tell the police how to operate and the military when to fight. Allowing police and the military to dictate the hows, when, where is asking for tyranny.

4) Police officers are not above citizens, so please spare me the rhetoric about how police need personal amored vehicles, etc. The police should NEVER have access to equipment that a private citizen cannot have access to.

4a) If we get to a police/totalitarian state, do you think they will send the military? The FBI? They don't have the manpower or resources, but militarize the police and you bet the police will be part of the equation.

5) I have a huge bone with the general assumption that citizens are guilty until innocent. One of the first things police do is ask for ID, why? IMO, one should only have to show an ID, after police have made the determination they are going to detain or arrest. Not showing ID and being arrested because of it, is frankly crap. "Papers, please", but hey I guess that's okay with everybody.

6) This thread, points it out; everyone assumes the dead guy was belligerent. He is dead and can't really defend himself. When it comes to citizen vs. state, I will always assume he was innocent until proven guilty. One might claim, well you are not affording the police officers the same right.

#1 based off the evidence I have, it wasn't justified.

#2 a free and prosperous society requires a healthy amount of scepticism when it comes to policing the enforcers.

7) The erosion of freedoms and liberty start local and close to home. NSA, Boston, etc. this, they are all inter-related in that liberty and freedom require constant vigilence, constant questioning of whether the actions of the State or agents of the State are morally justified.

8) It may be that this was justified. Like the recent Florida theatre shooting. Originally, I thought the shooter was probably some crazy guy, the video while not conclusive puts a little different spin on it. I originally thought murder 2, but after the video at best voluntary manslaughter and it is possible involuntary or even he walks. However, based on this video I do not see evidence for the use of force.

9) I do not mean offense when I say police as mini-gods, I see that society has given them too much power. For example, I was driving home from work today and stopped at a red light with a cop in front of me and a SUV about 4 cars in front of the cop. The SUV wanted to make a right turn. There is a parking lot that appears to be a cut-through to make a right hand turn, except unless you've driven there before you wouldn't know that about a 6 inch curb separates 2 parking lots rather than 1 lot. Guy in SUV goes down the curb, sure enough about 15 sec. later the cop pulls into the left hand turn lane, gets to the red light, crosses in front of traffic to make a right hand turn to go after this guy. The SUV jumped a curb that was on private property and the cop chases him. Now it's possible that the owners didn't want people jumping curbs, but that's a simple solution, put up a barrier. Should the guy have done it, no, is it worth the cop potentially causing an accident to chase him, no. Would everyone else do it if the cop didn't chase him, no.

10) I've said it before and I'll say it again, it wasn't Hitler that turned Germany into a dictatorship, it was the complacency of the people and the people turning on themselves.

11) We are becoming a society that feeds off of telling other people how to run their lives and in enforcing our world-view of "justice". A parent does a stupid thing and leaves a child in the car. If that is reported the parent goes to jail, they face possibly a year in jail and their children removed. I've got kids so as a parent it is insane to do something like that, but it requires education not jail time. Making a mistake, forgiveness and mercy are slowly but surely being eliminated from society.

The long and short is in today's society one doesn't ever want to find oneself on the wrong side, b/c it is becoming increasingly possible that the hammer will drop.

Edited February 28, 2014 by yjacket

[Dravin]

4) Police officers are not above citizens, so please spare me the rhetoric about how police need personal amored vehicles, etc. The police should NEVER have access to equipment that a private citizen cannot have access to.

Private citizens can own armored personal carriers. The issue with ownership would be any armament not the armor. There would also possibly be issues with them being street legal if you're just buying surplus APCs and not getting something custom made.

6) This thread, points it out; everyone assumes the dead guy was belligerent.

No, they don't.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Dravin

[yjacket]

No, they don't.

Sure, "everyone" is hyperbole on my part-my bad, I should have said a significant portion, my apologies. But "giving the police the benefit of the doubt" is assuming he is belligerent as that is why the police put him on the ground.

[Dravin]

Sure, "everyone" is hyperbole on my part-my bad. But "giving the police the benefit of the doubt" is assuming he is belligerent as that is why the police put him on the ground.

No, it's being unwilling to assume wrong doing in the absence of evidence. Forgive those of us for which this is not our first rodeo and thus don't leap to the conclusion, "I saw something that looked bad on YouTube, it must mean something bad happened!"

Edited February 28, 2014 by Dravin

[yjacket]

No, it's being unwilling to assume wrong doing in the absence of evidence.

What part of dead, is incomprehensible. If he were alive, I'd agree. He's dead and as the video shows he was carried away in a stretcher after being put on the ground by police for being "belligerent".

Now, I guess it's possible he had a heart attack after the police put him on the ground and he stopped struggling and the heart attack had nothing to do with being put on the ground.

But, I'd have to say the video makes it kind-of clear that there is significant probability that the weight of 5 men who were on top of him combined with pepperspray, a knee to the neck and possible choke points most likely killed him.

[yjacket]

No, it's being unwilling to assume wrong doing in the absence of evidence. Forgive those of us for which this is not our first rodeo and thus don't leap to the conclusion, "I saw something that looked bad on YouTube, it must mean something bad happened!"

And it's not my first rodeo either . . . what do you think I'm 14, give me a break.

[Dravin]

What part of dead, is incomprehensible.

No part. What part of watching a video online doesn't make one an expert and doesn't make one magically know what happened without needing to bother with things like having the facts after a proper investigation, is incomprehensible?

If he were alive, I'd agree. He's dead and as the video shows he was carried away in a stretcher after being put on the ground by police for being "belligerent".

If he was alive wouldn't be evidence of no wrong doing. That he died is not evidence of there being wrong doing.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Dravin