Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s Arrest

[Ubereil]

Folks, you keep talking about "until she was actually a threat to ... herself". Where's that magic point, folks? Are you qualified to make psychological evaluations right there on the street? Do you expect cops to be qualified psychologists? Your entire flimsy argument is built on this little bit of doggie doo.

Personally I think disarming her would have been just as easy, if not easier, than disarming her and throwing her to the ground. Heck, I suspect just asking politely would have gotten the job done! And if that hadn't worked, and the lady panicked, THEN would have been the time for what she did as a default action.

Bottom line, y'all want to indict, so you're not going to consider any facts that run contrary to the verdict you want to get. Bigs ups for the mindless mob.

That one would sting a lot more if you weren't doing it yourself.

Still waiting for that first bloody tear on behalf of fallen cops from all the bleeding hearts. Hypocrites.

Are you saying the cop in this case used a proper ammount of violence because we don't have any sympathy for all the cops who died in service in the US for the last two years?

Übereil

 

[JDR13]

Just looked back at the video. When the cop assaulted the woman, she was actually walking away from her in direction of no one in particular! That's not specially threatening. And if someone walked toward someone else, it's the cop. The old woman was just standing still, until the police car arrived

When the cop "assaulted" the woman? I'm sorry, but I watched the video several times, and I didn't see anyone "assaulted".

 

[hishadow]

Looks like a crazy situation to me, but of course, maybe that neighbrhood is rife with crazed, knife-wielding Alzheimer's victims preying on the local populace or something.

Disarm the woman if you have to by grabbing her bird-boned wrist and twisting it, but slamming a confused 84 year old weighing ninety-five pounds to the pavement seems nuts to me. I don't hate cops, though, or think the woman needs to be fired--a little more training might be good.

The camera was shacking too much when the police woman tried to subdue the older lady, but it looks like she tried to grab her hand from behind but lost control and in reflex did a judo throw. In hindsight it may seem like a stupid way to resolve it since she didn't take the frailty of the older lady into consideration, but police brutality isn't what comes to mind first.

 

[peko]

Folks, you keep talking about "until she was actually a threat to ... herself". Where's that magic point, folks? Are you qualified to make psychological evaluations right there on the street? Do you expect cops to be qualified psychologists? Your entire flimsy argument is built on this little bit of doggie doo.

That magic point is when someone does something that indicates that they're going to hurt themselves. And as I'm not qualified to make psychological evaluations on the street (and don't really expect cops to either) I assume that people are not going to hurt themselves without any action indicating that they are.

Bottom line, y'all want to indict, so you're not going to consider any facts that run contrary to the verdict you want to get. Bigs ups for the mindless mob.

What facts? All the necessary facts are present in the video and news story or do you claim to have some facts relevant to this case that aren't from those sources?

Still waiting for that first bloody tear on behalf of fallen cops from all the bleeding hearts. Hypocrites.

Ok, I'm sorry that police officers die in the line of duty, it sucks.
I usually don't feel like I need state such obvious sentiments and I think most other people doesn't either, that might be why you haven't seen more of them.
On the other hand not a single cop was hurt in this instance so how many police officers who died last year is irrelevant.

When the cop "assaulted" the woman? I'm sorry, but I watched the video several times, and I didn't see anyone "assaulted".

From the New Oxford American Dictionary
assault |əˈsôlt|
verb [ trans. ]
make a physical attack on : he pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer | she was sexually assaulted as a child. See note at attack .
• figurative attack or bombard (someone or the senses) with something undesirable or unpleasant : her right ear was assaulted with a tide of music.
• carry out a military attack or raid on (an enemy position) : they left their strong position to assault the hill.
• rape.

You'll have to explain to me how that take-down does not constitute a physical attack.

 

[txa1265]

A steak knife is not a deadly weapon.

Tell that to the people who have been stabbed - this is binary: either they are not dead, or you are wrong.

 

[JDR13]

That magic point is when someone does something that indicates that they're going to hurt themselves. And as I'm not qualified to make psychological evaluations on the street (and don't really expect cops to either) I assume that people are not going to hurt themselves without any action indicating that they are.

Which is exactly what cops can't afford to do. If the woman had hurt herself or another, then the cops would be taking the blame for that as well.

You'll have to explain to me how that take-down does not constitute a physical attack.

I thought it might be common sense, but I'll try to explain it to you anyways. That was a *police officer* who subdued the woman, not a civilian. She was fully in the right as an officer to subdue someone who may have been a threat to herself or others.

Whether or not the woman was actually a threat is not the point, the officer had no way of knowing that at the time, and had to make a fast decision based on what she saw.

 

[zahratustra]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that American policeman/woman is much more likely to face an armed perp than their European counterparts but US police force seems to be much more aggresive and "in your face" that European ones. And, judging from what I have seen in the US and what I have read in the posts of some of our American friends here, in US you really SHOULD expect to be arrested if you look at the policeman in a wrong way.
In London, during Friday nights "after pub" street cleaning, I have seen drunken jobs being arrested only after being warned twice not to use abusive language towards police. Restraint and control are part of their training and they are Police Service not Police Force. But, hey guys, you seems to prefer it your way don't you?

 

[Prime Junta]

Well, let's see here. We've got a tremendous lack of personal responsibility engendered by "feel good" psychobabble in the education system. We've got tremendous lack of respect for authority figures, as painfully illustrated by this thread parts A and B. We've got an "enlightened" prison system that rehabilitates practically nobody and deters nothing. We've got a judicial system that's allowed legal technicalities to turn "innocent until proven guilty" into farce.

Shall I continue?

I'd rather have you provide some evidence of the above first. Two parts: evidence for each contention, and then evidence that the posited cause makes policing more dangerous.

For example, I posit that Scandinavian culture has a good deal less respect for authority figures, and they certainly have a far more enlightened prison system (as in, much more lenient penalties, much better prison conditions, much more variety in the types of institutions for different kinds of offender, much better followup post-release, much better funding per inmate), and quite likely more stringent standards of evidence to convict -- yet they have far less crime and far less police fatalities.

My off-the-cuff list would include stuff like:

* More poverty and larger permanently marginalized social groups, which results in stuff like...
- Bigger, more deeply entrenched gangs.
- Bigger and broader incidence of drug abuse.
- "No-go zones" with insufficient law enforcement.
- Poorer relations between citizens and police.
* Gun fetishism combined with wider availability of handguns and ammunition.
* Harsher penal code, giving criminals less to lose in case of arrest, thereby giving them incentives to fight to the death.

I believe that I would be able to provide fairly good evidence for each of these contentions, as well as for the contention that they all contribute to higher levels of violent crime, or more lethal violent crime. Britain, for example, has a significant gang problem, but the gangs are generally armed with knives rather than guns, which makes them far less lethal.

But since you started, you go first. Let's see some evidence, otherwise they're just boilerplate wingnut dogma.

 

[Prime Junta]

And she didn't respond or put down the knife. She could have confused herself into hurting herself or someone else with it. She's obviously not in a lucid and coherent frame of mind. She might not even 'mean' to hurt someone and do it anyways.

Except that, as I've stated, any halfway competent cop could easily have herded civilians away from her, so she would not have been able to assault them, and she made no indication that she was about to hurt herself or the cop. If she had actually rushed somebody, it would have been completely different.

And I don't think that at all. I don't see a little old black lady as different from a little old white lady.

I believe you. I don't, however, take it as a given that said cop is as enlightened as you are. For many people, blacks are simply not worth as much as whites, and I believe there's a possibility that this is the case here too. I can't prove it, of course, but neither can I discount the possibility.

 

[Prime Junta]

Until when? Someone comes up and tranqs her? I'm just curious as to how long the cop would have to keep people away from her. She has no idea how the lady got there, if she's on medication, if she's had some sort of mental break, etc - just that she is nonresponsive, coming towards her, and carrying a knife.

I don't know. Five minutes? I do know from the video that she made no attempt to talk to her. It was "Drop your weapon!" and then "Bullrush!"

You misunderstand me - she was obviously not in her right mind, correct? She could have hurt herself or someone *without realizing what she was doing*. The cop's not psychic. Maybe she could have tried a different disarm, but it's not like she kicked the old lady in the throat after the 'threat' was neutralized or decided to tazer her.

Or she could have calmly assessed the situation, noted that the old lady is confused and at most a very limited threat, called out to the bystanders to stand aside, and then tried to calmly talk to her. But she didn't. It was all by the gang-war book: "Drop your weapon!" CRUNCH! That was a very poor call, and not what I expect from someone trained and equipped to keep the peace. It would be like, say, a money manager panicking the moment the stock market dips and selling everything, or going "Whoopee!" and buying everything the minute it goes up a bit. Incompetent.

 

[Prime Junta]

Folks, you keep talking about "until she was actually a threat to ... herself". Where's that magic point, folks? Are you qualified to make psychological evaluations right there on the street? Do you expect cops to be qualified psychologists? Your entire flimsy argument is built on this little bit of doggie doo.

I'm qualified enough to tell that someone who's not making any sudden or threatening movements and is not carrying a firearm probably doesn't constitute a direct and imminent threat to herself or anyone else. And I'm not even a cop.

Bottom line, y'all want to indict, so you're not going to consider any facts that run contrary to the verdict you want to get. Bigs ups for the mindless mob.

Still waiting for that first bloody tear on behalf of fallen cops from all the bleeding hearts. Hypocrites.

For what it's worth I was shocked and saddened when that Danish killer shot the two Finnish cops in 1997. I don't remember if I cried, though. Does that count?

I think I'll join Rith on the sideline. This has become utterly pointless. Y'all should be ashamed, but I guess I'll just have to be completely embarassed on your behalf.

I'm sure there are worse things you could do.

 

[Prime Junta]

Tell that to the people who have been stabbed - this is binary: either they are not dead, or you are wrong.

...unless it's used as one.

A steak knife is a tool. It's designed to cut steak. It can be used as a weapon, for sure, but then so can anything -- a cane, an umbrella, a hammer, an ax, a shoe.

A gun is unambiguously a weapon. It has no other purpose. For ambiguous things, I would have to see some indication that whoever is carrying it intends to use it as a weapon. This was not the case this time.

 

[Prime Junta]

I thought it might be common sense, but I'll try to explain it to you anyways. That was a *police officer* who subdued the woman, not a civilian. She was fully in the right as an officer to subdue someone who may have been a threat to herself or others.

Funny, I thought it was common sense to expect police officers to act with good judgment when they're exercising their very broad rights to arrest and violence. It's precisely because they have this right that we should expect them to act responsibly.

Whether or not the woman was actually a threat is not the point, the officer had no way of knowing that at the time, and had to make a fast decision based on what she saw.

Come on -- you can see just by looking at the video that the old biddy wasn't threatening anyone. If I can see that, a trained police officer sure as hell should be able to.

 

[peko]

Which is exactly what cops can't afford to do. If the woman had hurt herself or another, then the cops would be taking the blame for that as well.

So you think police should restrain people randomly on the street because they might hurt themselves? Because that's the alternative, either you work by the assumption that until someone has indicated that they're a danger to themselves they aren't or you assume that everyone is about to hurt themselves all the time.
If the video had played out differently and the old women with no warning cut herself I wouldn't blame the police for not intervening until then, after all they're only human.

I thought it might be common sense, but I'll try to explain it to you anyways. That was a *police officer* who subdued the woman, not a civilian. She was fully in the right as an officer to subdue someone who may have been a threat to herself or others.

Whether or not the woman was actually a threat is not the point, the officer had no way of knowing that at the time, and had to make a fast decision based on what she saw.

Does her being a police officer change the fact that she physically attacked the old woman? I was merely pointing out that if you saw no assault in that video you either need glasses or a dictionary.
And I don't think that it is a police officers RIGHT to subdue someone who MAY have been a threat to herself (and she was in no way a threat to anyone else). I do belive it's a police officers DUTY to subdue people who are a realistic threat to someone else or indicate that they're likely to hurt themselves, not that it really matters as neither was the case here.

 

[Ubereil]

My off-the-cuff list would include stuff like:

* Gun fetishism combined with wider availability of handguns and ammunition.

When talking to american pro-gun pepole (who are often liberal FYI) they all claim that there are countries that are equally crazy of guns (Canada, for instance) where violence isn't that much of a problem. They also point to states with unusually liberal carry laws (like Vermont) where crime is also unusually low, and that there doesn't seem to be any causalisation between free gun laws and low crime. If there is one, it is that crime rate goes down if pepole are allowed to carry guns in public.

They also hold out Finland as a country with loads of guns who also has a really low crime rate. Which makes me wonder exactly how gun liberal you finnish are.

Übereil

 

[Prime Junta]

We've been tightening our gun laws recently, due to a couple of school shootings, but we're still among the most liberal in Europe. Until last year, the age limit for owning a gun was 15, and you could get a license basically by going to the police station and acting sane for fifteen minutes.

Recently they changed it so that you have to actually be able to show that you're able to use a gun responsibly, i.e., take a hunting class, pass a hunting test, and join a hunting club, or join a shooting club; you'll only be issued a permit for your own gun after you've been an active member for a year or so, and they won't issue permits for heavy-caliber stuff right away. By the numbers, there are 2.4 million legal firearms for a population of five million, i.e., on average, every household has one. (Not the case in reality, of course -- usually gun owners own several, which means that lots of households don't have them.)

And no, despite some very high-profile and tragic incidents lately, we don't have a huge problem with gun crime.

That's why I put "gun fetishism" in the phrase. What I meant is that I get the impression that guns symbolize something in the US that they don't here.

Here, a gun really is just something you use for hunting or sport. We don't consider guns necessary for self-defense (we have the police for that). We don't consider them as symbols or instruments of liberty; we have the army for that (which we do sometimes idolize to an unhealthy degree). We don't consider it the last line of defense against an oppressive government; we have the ballot box for that. Most men go through military service: running around toting an AK-47 for a year is very effective at taking the romance out of rifles. We don't consider "gun owner" as a marker of identity any more than, say, "boat owner" or "golf club owner" -- shooting and hunting are hobbies like any other. We don't have a "gun lobby" nor a division between "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" people, although naturally we have people with differing views on whether gun laws should be tightened or relaxed.

For the US, the contrary appears to be true. Gun ownership and attitudes to gun rights are an important marker of political identity; the NRA wields huge lobbying power; gun ownership is talked of in almost religious terms, as a fundamental right that's up there with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." For many, guns seem to symbolize freedom, the frontier lifestyle, self-reliance, courage, patriotism, and what have you. There's a _romance_ about them. I believe this mental landscape is a big factor in explaining why the US has so much more gun crime than countries like Canada or Finland, with similar rates of gun ownership. Guns really don't kill people, people do -- and to find out why Americans kill each other so much more than Canadians, you have to look at Americans and Canadians, not the hardware they're toting.

 

[JDR13]

@Prima Junta, maybe try using the quote+ function?

Does her being a police officer change the fact that she physically attacked the old woman? I was merely pointing out that if you saw no assault in that video you either need glasses or a dictionary.

I can tell the difference between an assault and subduing a person. That's not to say that the officer didn't use excessive force, because I think she did, but that's still not the same thing as "assault". But I can see you already have your mind made up, so I won't waste any more of my time with you.

 

[Prime Junta]

@Prima Junta, maybe try using the quote+ function?

I tried it before, but all it does is get me hopelessly confused; I no longer remember who I'm talking to and what each of them said before. I find it easier to keep each conversation separate in its own post. Sorry about spamming the board, though; I think a better solution would be for me to learn to STFU every once in a while...

 

[peko]

I can tell the difference between an assault and subduing a person. That's not to say that the officer didn't use excessive force, because I think she did, but that's still not the same thing as "assault". But I can see you already have your mind made up, so I won't waste any more of my time with you.

Yes my mind is made up about the definition of the word assault, I even posted a definition out of a quite reliable dictionary. If you're talking about some other definiton of assault I'd be happy to consider that but so far all you've tried to say is that what the police officers did wasn't a "pysichal attack" and I disagree.

 

[vanedor]

I totally agree with Peko here.

Now if in the police jargon, the word assault means something else than in the common language dictionary, that's fine with me. But I don't speak police jargon so I believe my use of the word "assault" is still alright to describe what the police officer did.