Baltimore riots

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LP, when you say patently false and outrageous things like that a man was killed by police for selling cigarettes, then yes, you are being inflammatory.

 

Vort, apparently my ignoring your last couple of posts directed at me was not clear enough.  So I will be more clear.  

 

I have no desire to interact with you.  You say I'm condescending, well you should know since in my opinion you are the most condescending person on the board.  And yes, I think you are also inflammatory and sarcastic.  Everytime I get in a discussion with you it turns ugly, so I tried to avoid you this time...but we see how that worked out.  

 

So Mr. Pot, just call me Ms. Kettle.  

[bytor2112]

LP, when you say patently false and outrageous things like that a man was killed by police for selling cigarettes, then yes, you are being inflammatory.

 

Bingo. 

[unixknight]

Except that LP hit the nail on the head.  The only reason... LITERALLY the only reason Garner was stopped was for selling cigarettes.  And he was dead a few minutes later.  Resisting arrest?  Please.  He wasn't being combative, he had no weapon, he made no attempt to flee.  Yet the officers pounced on him like they'd caught Osama Bin Laden himself and were vying for a million dollar bounty.  

 

The police reaction was utterly excessive.  Full stop.  They even violated their own departmental policy by using that particular hold on him.

 

I was reading about this and it turns out the law against selling loose cigarettes is NOT typically enforced by police, but is more of a regulatory thing.  What's baffling to many analysts of the incident is why they stopped Mr. Garner in the first place over something so believably minor.  What most likely happened is some local business, whose sales of cigarettes were being hurt by this activity, instigated police involvement by applying pressure somewhere.

 

So yes, he was killed for selling cigarettes.  Was that the intent of the officers?  Of course it wasn't and nobody, including LP, has said otherwise.  Nevertheless there was gross negligence on the part of officers who normally wouldn't have even been involved.  The whole situation stinks and there were no consequences for the men who caused Garner's death.

 

People see this, and then feign surprise when people in places like Baltimore riot over another death for ridiculous causes.

[Vort]

 

Except that LP hit the nail on the head.  The only reason... LITERALLY the only reason Garner was stopped was for selling cigarettes.

 

Stopped, not shot. This is not difficult.

 

Killed for selling cigarettes: "Hey, look, that dude is selling cigs!" BLAM

 

The police reaction was utterly excessive.  Full stop.

 

This may well be true. He still was not killed "for selling cigarettes". That is a false and inflammatory statement.

 

Note that it would not be inflammatory if it were true. It would then merely be a true description of an outrageous act. But of course, it is not true. It is at best a false description of an outrageous act -- the key word being "false". If the action of the police was so egregiously awful, why do you need to lie about it to make it sound even worse? Just say what actually happened.

 

So yes, he was killed for selling cigarettes.  Was that the intent of the officers?  Of course it wasn't and nobody, including LP, has said otherwise.

 

This is absurd. You're saying the police officers ACCIDENTALLY killed a man for selling cigarettes.

 

The man was STOPPED for selling cigarettes. The situation then degenerated and the man was killed -- perhaps wrongly. Maybe he was even murdered by the police. But he was not killed for selling cigarettes. To maintain that is a false description of what happened.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Vort

[unixknight]

I get what you're saying, but I think at this point you're arguing semantics... Which I also understand because it's important to be clear, but consider this...  When the police make contact with a person, especially when there are several officers, as was the case with Mr. Garner, the potential exists for things to become deadly.  The cops are the ones with guns, training, numbers, and (usually) body armor in addition to "nonlethal" equipment like pepper spray, tasers, etc.  

 

Given that, they chose to stop Mr. Garner, with all of that deadly force behind them.  Doesn't that strike you as overkill when considering the crime here was selling loose cigarettes?  This is exactly why the police don't normally enforce that ordinance.  It would be like the cops coming to place you under arrest because you built a fence in your yard that extends onto a public easement.  Illegal, but not enforced by police.

 

So it was an inappropriate level of force sent to deal with the incident.  Things got haywire for whatever reason, but ultimately it all comes down to the selling of cigarettes.  Mr. Garner is dead over the selling of loose cigarettes.

 

Now, as I said, I appreciate your desire to be clear, but I would also hope you'd be equally enthusiastic about pushing for clarity when people arguing form the other side use inflammatory statements, like calling guys like Freddie Gray a "criminal" or a "thug" as a way to minimize his humanity when discussing his untimely death and trying to absolve the Baltimore police of responsibility.

[Vort]

 

I get what you're saying, but I think at this point you're arguing semantics...

 

Consider this:

 

- "Mormons worship Satan!"

- "No, Mormons do not worship Satan. They worship Christ."

- "Well, they worship a DIFFERENT Christ, not the one I worship!"

- "That may be the case, but the point is that Mormons don't worship Satan."

- "Now you're just arguing semantics."

 

The man was manifestly NOT killed for selling cigarettes.

 

Given that, they chose to stop Mr. Garner, with all of that deadly force behind them.  Doesn't that strike you as overkill when considering the crime here was selling loose cigarettes?

 

Yes, it does. But I'm not a cop. I am quite sure that the cops didn't come into the situation armed to the teeth because they were afraid someone might try to illegally sell them some cigarettes. I am sure that preparation was taken based on previous experience, which taught them that any situation, even cigarette selling, might turn dangerous.

 

So the cops may well have been 100% wrong on this, but they STILL did not kill the man for selling cigarettes.

 

ultimately it all comes down to the selling of cigarettes.  Mr. Garner is dead over the selling of loose cigarettes.

 

Then thirteen million people died over the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

 

No, that's more than an absurd oversimplification. It's untrue. Thirteen million people were not killed over Ferdinand's assassination. That was a triggering event, not the reason for what happened.

 

Now, as I said, I appreciate your desire to be clear, but I would also hope you'd be equally enthusiastic about pushing for clarity when people arguing form the other side use inflammatory statements, like calling guys like Freddie Gray a "criminal" or a "thug" as a way to minimize his humanity when discussing his untimely death and trying to absolve the Baltimore police of responsibility.

 

I don't know if Freddie Gray was a "thug". In this context, I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean. It's clear he had a lengthy criminal record, including arrests for:

• March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
• March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
• January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
• January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
• December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
• December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
• August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
• January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
• September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
• April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
• July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
• March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
• March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
• February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
• August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
• August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
• August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
• July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)

Most of these are drug charges, and you may think that drug charges "don't count". But note that several of them are much more serious, including assault and burglary. I also acknowledge that arrests do not equate to guilt. But do you really think the Baltimore cops had it in for some random guy on the street so much that they repeatedly arrested him for no reason just because they could?

 

Look, as far as I can glean from the little bit of reading I've done, Freddie Gray was a man born into a harsh situation who coped as best he could. It is not obvious to me that he was violent or cruel. He participated in the drug culture into which he was born and raised; hard to fault him too much for that. It is tragic that he was killed, and if he was killed wrongfully, his killers should be dealt with accordingly.

 

But to say he was "killed for selling cigarettes" is a misrepresentation of what happened. Whatever went on that led to Freddie Gray's death, it's clear he was not killed for selling cigarettes. Or do you think if he had been arrested the way he was for a completely different reason, but under identical circumstances, he would therefore not have been killed?

 

Freddie Gray's killing was a result of poor police training, or a hothead cop, or a deadly misunderstanding, or something he did that we know nothing about that led to his killing, or something else completely. Or more likely a combination of many such factors. But the salient point in his death was not that he was selling cigarettes, as if anyone illegally selling cigarettes is in imminent danger of being shot to death by a cop. This is not a mere pedantic point of niggly hyper-correctness; it's an attempt to portray events meaningfully.

[Guest MormonGator]

Vort-This is off topic but I gotta say it. Your profile pic looks like someone I knew way back. It's so cool to see because we were friends and she used to kick my butt at Nintendo all the time. 

[unixknight]

Freddie Gray's killing was a result of poor police training, or a hothead cop, or a deadly misunderstanding, or something he did that we know nothing about that led to his killing, or something else completely. Or more likely a combination of many such factors. But the salient point in his death was not that he was selling cigarettes, as if anyone illegally selling cigarettes is in imminent danger of being shot to death by a cop. This is not a mere pedantic point of niggly hyper-correctness; it's an attempt to portray events meaningfully.

 

Brother, I get what you're saying, I see it from your point of view, and I'm asking you to take a moment to see it from mine.

 

There is just no reason why someone committing a crime so minor as selling cigarettes (which, IMHO shouldn't even be a crime but whatever...) should be dead as a direct result of contact with the police over it.  We have agreed that they didn't go in with the intent to kill him, and we've agreed that he didn't deserve to die, so that covers the salient aspects.

 

The point I'm making here is that the police escalated the level of the confrontation to the point where a life was lost.  Mr. Garner did not escalate it, the police did.  As a direct result of that escalation, a man is dead.  Period.  

 

Now, I don't know if you were unaware or if it's a typo in your post,  but the situation where Mr. Garner died after selling cigarettes in New York City is an entirely separate incident from Mr. Gray being killed after doing nothing in Baltimore.  The incident with Mr. Garner was certainly a factor in increasing the frustration felt by the protesters in Baltimore, but they are separate incidents that we're talking about here.  Your post seems to overlap the two.

 

Back to the situation with Mr. Garner.  He was selling single cigarettes.  Yes, the cops didn't show up and blow him away for selling cigarettes.  WE GET IT, BRAH.  You've made your point on that and the horse is quite dead, I assure you.  Nobody has even disputed that point.  What we're saying is that the NYPD needlessly escalated the level of force, over an extremely minor infraction, to the point where a man died.  So from where I'm sitting, he was killed over selling cigarettes.  Whether that was the intent of the cops on the scene or not, he died because he was selling cigarettes.

 

So if we're arguing the question of "He died over selling cigarettes" being equivalent to "he was killed for selling cigarettes" well that's an argument of semantics.  Yes, the  two sentences do  have differing implications, but I assure you, we are all adults here and we know the difference.  I believe both LP and I have been sufficiently clear on acknowledging that difference.

[Vort]

 

Brother, I get what you're saying, I see it from your point of view, and I'm asking you to take a moment to see it from mine.

 

There is just no reason why someone committing a crime so minor as selling cigarettes (which, IMHO shouldn't even be a crime but whatever...) should be dead as a direct result of contact with the police over it.  We have agreed that they didn't go in with the intent to kill him, and we've agreed that he didn't deserve to die, so that covers the salient aspects.

 

The point I'm making here is that the police escalated the level of the confrontation to the point where a life was lost.  Mr. Garner did not escalate it, the police did.  As a direct result of that escalation, a man is dead.  Period. 

 

Yes, I think we do agree on the salient aspects. I believe I can understand your point of view, which is that a man was shot dead by a police officer for no good reason in a confrontation that began with a trivial offense.

 

Now, I don't know if you were unaware or if it's a typo in your post,  but the situation where Mr. Garner died after selling cigarettes in New York City is an entirely separate incident from Mr. Gray being killed after doing nothing in Baltimore.

 

No, you're right. This is inattentiveness on my part and getting the situations conflated. Unhappily, both men's last names began with "G", and people in general tend to glide over names and just remember the first letter when reading a narrative. (This is actually an issue among authors of fiction, and there have been many discussions on how to name characters such that the reader will actually remember the character's name. The current consensus seems to be, Hope your reader is a careful enough reader to actually take the time to understand the name. In the news stories, I was not sufficiently careful. Sorry.)

 

Back to the situation with Mr. Garner.  He was selling single cigarettes.  Yes, the cops didn't show up and blow him away for selling cigarettes.  WE GET IT, BRAH.  You've made your point on that and the horse is quite dead, I assure you.  Nobody has even disputed that point.  What we're saying is that the NYPD needlessly escalated the level of force, over an extremely minor infraction, to the point where a man died.  So from where I'm sitting, he was killed over selling cigarettes.  Whether that was the intent of the cops on the scene or not, he died because he was selling cigarettes.

 

So if we're arguing the question of "He died over selling cigarettes" being equivalent to "he was killed for selling cigarettes" well that's an argument of semantics.  Yes, the  two sentences do  have differing implications, but I assure you, we are all adults here and we know the difference.  I believe both LP and I have been sufficiently clear on acknowledging that difference.

 

Google "killed for selling cigarettes", read the first dozen or so of the resulting articles, then return here and tell me in all honesty and with a straight face that putting the issue in those terms does not falsely color the perception of what happened. Of course it does.

 

Or are you okay with the hypothetical anti-Mormons claiming we worship Satan, then dismissing objections by arguing that the literal falseness of the statement is utterly beside the point?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Vort

[unixknight]

Google "killed for selling cigarettes", read the first dozen or so of the resulting articles, then return here and tell me in all honesty and with a straight face that putting the issue in those terms does not falsely color the perception of what happened. Of course it does.

 

Or are you okay with the hypothetical anti-Mormons claiming we worship Satan, then dismissing objections by arguing that the literal falseness of the statement is utterly beside the point?

 

I know what you're getting at there.  I'm only saying that, in the context of our little discussion here, you don't have to worry about anyone thinking the cops literally, intentionally, choked Mr. Garner to death for selling cigarettes.  

 

It is true that there are people out on the interwebz who are deliberately trying to inflame the discussion by casting the cops (in both cases as well as others) as bloodthirsty racist monsters and all that nonsense, and to the extent that you're referring to that stuff,  you're right to make the distinction.  However, I'd just hope that, since we're all friends here, a little benefit of the doubt is on the table :)

[Leah]

In your opinion. Unless you are a mind reader you can't be certain what my intention was.

I'll be happy to clarify. People have used the argument "if you don't want to get hurt don't break the law." My statement that you bolded was intended to show the fallacy of this way of thinking.

I don't know what the officers were thinking. But I don't believe in either case their actions were justified. THAT was/is my point.

We are talking about two men's needless deaths, I don't need to use inflammatory language the situation itself is inflammatory enough. Those deaths are what is outrageous here. And what is worse is they are far from the only two needless deaths..they are just the two we are discussing right now.

Who said they "needed to die"?

You apparently do believe that you are a mind reader when you make statements about "death penalties" and a "need" to die. Because that is what you are implying was in the hearts and minds of.....who, exactly? The officers? Other unnamed people? Who is saying they needed to die? Which police officer stated he decided to personally inflict the "death penalty" because it's illegal to sell loosies? Apparently you have access either to other's unspoken thoughts or some other top-secret information.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hmm.  Me, I like a little inflammatory-ness now and then--if it's not deliberately insulting, and if it ultimately leads me to think.

 

On the "buying cigarettes" thing--my takeaway from it is that any time society makes a law, we need to remember that there will be resistors, and that the law--all laws--ultimately will have to be enforced by the threat of deadly force.  If we don't like lethal force being deployed against the lawbreakers, maybe we should consider whether the law is worth having in the first place rather than rage against the hired guns who--at the end of the day--are basically doing what we, as a society, specifically instructed them to do; and often putting their own lives on the line in the process.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Who said they "needed to die"?

You apparently do believe that you are a mind reader when you make statements about "death penalties" and a "need" to die. Because that is what you are implying was in the hearts and minds of.....who, exactly? The officers? Other unnamed people? Who is saying they needed to die? Which police officer stated he decided to personally inflict the "death penalty" because it's illegal to sell loosies? Apparently you have access either to other's unspoken thoughts or some other top-secret information.

 

No, I don't think the police intended for to kill someone.  What I am trying to get at the fallacy of the idea that "it wouldn't have happened if he didn't resist" or "it wouldn't have happened if he didn't run"....when people make those statements they seem to be justifying the deaths.  Thus, I said selling cigarettes isn't worthy of the death penalty.  I don't even agree that Eric Garner resisted, but if he had the "if he hadn't resisted, it wouldn't have happened" is still not enough.  That situation should not have been escalated to that degree.  

 

I don't think these deaths are premeditated, but I do think they are unnecessary.  And that is the problem.

[Backroads]

Everybody already believes this. When a cop shoots a fleeing suspect in the back while he's running away, virtually no one defends the cop's actions. This argument strikes me as a straw man. (Not aimed at you, Backroads, just at the particular argument that I have heard from other quarters.)

  

Hmm.  Me, I like a little inflammatory-ness now and then--if it's not deliberately insulting, and if it ultimately leads me to think.

 

On the "buying cigarettes" thing--my takeaway from it is that any time society makes a law, we need to remember that there will be resistors, and that the law--all laws--ultimately will have to be enforced by the threat of deadly force.  If we don't like lethal force being deployed against the lawbreakers, maybe we should consider whether the law is worth having in the first place rather than rage against the hired guns who--at the end of the day--are basically doing what we, as a society, specifically instructed them to do; and often putting their own lives on the line in the process.

  

No, I don't think the police intended for to kill someone.  What I am trying to get at the fallacy of the idea that "it wouldn't have happened if he didn't resist" or "it wouldn't have happened if he didn't run"....when people make those statements they seem to be justifying the deaths.  Thus, I said selling cigarettes isn't worthy of the death penalty.  I don't even agree that Eric Garner resisted, but if he had the "if he hadn't resisted, it wouldn't have happened" is still not enough.  That situation should not have been escalated to that degree.  

 

I don't think these deaths are premeditated, but I do think they are unnecessary.  And that is the problem.

I multi quote to preface my thoughts here.

The vast majority of people are indeed against a cop shooting a defenseless and non-aggressive person. The grey area comes with the thought of "but we must stop crime no matter what!" Leading to, and probably without intention most cases, quickly rising violence beyond control. Ought we not to be asking if catching the guy at this time is worth the drama?

Now, JaG is right: why have a law if the consequences don't deter the crime? So we say deadly force will ultimately be used if necessary.

That creates a conundrum. We don't want messy blood and guts over jay-walking, but then we are left with no real way to deter crime. Criminals can rationalize potential consequences for a crime. Why stop a self-benefiting crime that hurts others and community if, most likely, nothing truly awful will happen to me?

So, what, we legalize all activities short of murder so no criminals will potentially die?

Now, I don't like petty thieves getting killed by botched police behavior? But... how do we stop petty thievery?

[Just_A_Guy]

By way of analogy: I dimly remember an instance where a "private fire department" had a policy that if a non-subscriber had a fire, they would arrive on-site to evacuate the building and contain the blaze but would not save the structure. Further, even if the homeowner offered them money on the spot to save the structure--they wouldn't take it. The reason was that if word got out that the fire department would bail you out for a one-time fee, no one would bother paying their annual subscriptions and the whole system would go kaput. So the brutality of the policy was, in fact, necessary to the survival of the institution and beneficial to society as a whole.

If the people discover that government is *not* willing use physical force to enforce compliance with a law--culminating with deadly force for those who resist--then compliance with that law essentially becomes optional, which defeats the purpose of making the law in the first place.

[unixknight]

The thing is, for minor infractions, like selling loose cigarettes or speeding, the penalty is generally a simple fine.  Hitting someone in the wallet is an effective punishment.  

 

This is what baffles me about the Garner case.

[bytor2112]

 

Then thirteen million people died over the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

 

Well. yes...over 16 million actually. ...."Butterfly Effect....... A butterfly can flap its wings in Peking and in Central Park you get rain instead of sunshine." -Dr. Ian Malcolm

Edited May 8, 2015 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Finally some justice in Baltimore!!!!!

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

 

 

Well. yes...over 16 million actually. ...."Butterfly Effect....... A butterfly can flap its wings in Peking and in Central Park you get rain instead of sunshine." -Dr. Ian Malcolm

 

 +5 points for Jurassic Park reference. 

[Backroads]

Finally some justice in Baltimore!!!!!

Is it wrong for me to laugh?

[Guest MormonGator]

Is it wrong for me to laugh?

 Yes, but I laughed too so we can be wrong together. 

[Vort]

I didn't laugh, just cringed. The idea of a man biting another man's genitalia may seem absurd and therefore funny, but the reality strikes me (so to speak) as the opposite of entertaining.

[unixknight]

Is it wrong for me to laugh?

 

If it is, we'll all go to Hell together.  I'll be driving the bus.  

 

This one ain't gettin' old for a while...

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Instead of blaming the victims, can we take some time and discuss/ponder what causes police to use excessive force? Accidental or habitual, why does this happen? 

 

And related to that question, have you seen this?

 

DOVER, Del. (WPVI) --

The Delaware Attorney General's Office has indicted a Dover police office on assault charges after he was caught on camera kicking a suspect in the face.

We should warn you the video might be disturbing to some viewers.

 

 http://6abc.com/news/cop-indicted-after-video-shows-suspect-kicked-in-head/703334/

 

 

This young man was not running, not resisting arrest,  not reaching for a weapon....there was really no excuse for this whatsoever.  This was clearly "excessive use of force" so why? 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I can't bring myself to watch this video, but the story is disturbing enough.

 

Why? Did these officers use excessive force?

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/graphic-video-emerges-showing-brutal-final-moments-vineland-man-mauled-k-9/