Atlanta-area police shoot dead unarmed, naked African-American man

[Derec]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/sta...americans-us-is-about-as-dangerous-as-rwanda/

Silver explained, the murder rate for white Americans is similar to the murder rate for people living in Finland, Chile or Israel. The murder rate for black Americans, on the other hand, is similar to the rate found “in developing countries that are war zones even, like Myanmar, or Rwanda, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, places that have vast disorder. To me that stat was so striking that I thought this was a case where even if you kinda zoomed out, that was a data point that helped to inform the discussion.”

Ok, but who is killing these black people? For the most part, it's other black people, not white (or off-white like Z) civilians or the police. That's why the hysterical (and frankly racist) responses to the Trayvon shooting or various police shootings ("open season on black men", "endangered species", "don't dare walk down the street" etc.) are so ridiculous.
Hell, now even a suicide of a young black woman in police custody is being made into a big deal, with accusations of murder etc.!

 

[Derec]

Black Nationalists? WTF? This statement very revealing.

Yes, black nationalists.

Notice the black nationalist flag being waved while the US flag is being burned.

Preferably? WTF?

Thugs that get shot by police tend to illicit a strong response by the protesters/rioters.

There is a higher bar of scrutiny because they are the police and they have killed. Scrutiny is NOT condemnation.

Calling every police shooting (or even jail suicides) "murder" before facts are in (or even after facts are in; some people still call the Michael Brown shooting "murder") is not "scrutiny".

Please tell me what do these men have to do with these cases? And why do the people who bring up their names care? Because the people who bring them up are always white.

Usually they insert themselves in these cases. Why is it wrong to mention say Al Sharpton when he spent a lot of time in Ferguson hatemongering against the police?

You confirmed my point.

When did i assign "superhuman abilities" to Trayvon? Nobody did that, although TYTs tried to paint him as "frail".

Do you know the unreleased facts? How do you know them?

Do you?

You know this without knowing the facts of the case that have not been released?

A lot of facts have been released though. Enough to know that some of the indicted officers had nothing to do with the van ride for example.

I live in a city with a large African population. "Black" with a capital "B" is the preferred term here for those Americans descended from African slaves. The term "African-American" causes a lot of friction between the two groups. And no I don't capitalize "W" in white because it is a cross cultural definition. "White" is often so broad that it includes Pakistanis, Peruvians and Pacific Islanders.

So only blacks with no recent African ancestry deserve to be capitalized? Do you capitalize some whites as well?
And when you talk about blacks and whites (rather than intra-black issues) and capitalize the former but don't capitalize the latter then it does look like racism, sorry.

 

[Derec]

Your obsession with legal technicalities blinds you to the issue.

The question is one of whether the cop should be prosecuted, whether he should continue to be a cop and whether a civil suit should result in a judgment against the cop and/or the city. For all these questions legal justification is relevant, not whether it was "absolutely necessary".

Those officers are alive, working as police and are on the street while Mr. Thomas is still dead, needlessly killed.

Would you rather a cop was dead and Thomas alive and got away in the stolen Maserati?

Mr. Thomas would be alive if he had been shot and killed by others.

I doubt that very much.

No one forced the police to shot and kill him. So your claim is ridiculous.

He drove toward a cop. He could well have hit and killed one of them. Was he successful in leaving the parking lot he could have struck and killed an unrelated party. Note that Thomas tried to run over a police officer once before, for which he was on felony probation in the first place. Note also that just the day before he successfully evaded police which prompted the police going to his place of work to arrest him.

 

[Derec]

Because until recently, "Run like hell" tended to be a safer choice than "Stand there and get beaten up and then arrested and then spend the rest of your life in the system for resisting arrest." OTOH, it has now become acceptable in some departments for police officers to shoot and kill suspects for attempting to FLEE FROM THEM, whether they are suspected of a crime or not.

What is "until recently"? And shooting a suspect for merely fleeing hasn't been acceptable since the 1985 SCOTUS decision, which is why the cop who killed Walter Scott has been charged with 2nd degree murder in the first place. So yeah, I am calling BS on your claim here.

No, just in general. The fact that the police KNOW this, however, informs their prejudices and their decision making processes even when they're dealing with a suspect that is not actually belligerent. They start with a threat level already five notches higher than it should be and it escalates from there.

Do you have any reason to suspect anything like this has been going on here? By all accounts Thomas jumped into the Quattroporte as soon as he saw the police.

But they're not, obviously.

There is no reason to think Thomas was treated differently in this case.

So your response is "Well, the unequal treatment is probably justified."

Not unequal treatment of individuals, but unequal outcomes if blacks are more likely to be combative toward police than whites.

Move along, nothing to see here.

In reference to the Nicholas Thomas case, indeed, there is nothing to see here as the case is pretty clear cut - justifiable shooting.

It's hardly an "admission" at all. Police officers in some neighborhoods go out of their way to antagonize residents and demonstrate their complete antipathy for them and their communities.

That is hardly the case here. Thomas was given plenty of opportunities, starting with getting probation for the aggravated assault conviction. And on that day, police did not force him to steal the Maserati and almost run of them over. Had he turned himself in none of this would have happened.

If the cop who pulls up to you in an alley and yells "Hold it right there!" happens to be the same cop who cracked your cousin's skull open three weeks ago over a busted tail light, your first instinct is probably "run like hell."

There was no alley here and no imaginary cousin with a cracked skull. Only a thug who tried to run over police officer in a stolen car.

And yet too many of those situations are escalated BY THE POLICE.

This situation was definitely escalated by the perp.

Do you think police officers should be allowed to arrest people on the street for refusing to show ID when asked? I personally don't, and I know a number of constitutional lawyers who would agree to this. But if you go into a black neighborhood in Chicago and ask them if it's safe to go outside without an ID, they will invariably tell you "No."

This wasn't a random ID check. This was a guy whom police wanted to arrest because he violated probation. A guy who decided that stealing a customer's car and driving toward officers is a better course of action than getting himself arrested.

Would you care to guess why that might be? Should I commit a further waste of my time asking you if you think there's something wrong when a community is almost as frightened of police officers as they are of gang bangers?

Yet statistics prove those fears unjustified (many more blacks get killed by other black civilians than by police and those killed by police are usually criminals like Thomas). And again, what does it have to do with what Thomas did?

The term "Pig" originates from the 1950s and 60s tensions at a time when police were WELL KNOWN for targeted harassment and sometimes even murder of black people on the flimsiest of pretexts.

And black nationalists were known for things like ambushing and murdering police, robbing banks, attacking prisons to free fellow thugs etc. Black power groups like the Panthers were criminal enterprises, no more admirable than the mafia, and it is unconscionable how much support his group enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, on the Left.
When Herman Bell, together with other black nationalists, murdered black police officer Waverly Jones (he also murdered his partner Joseph Piagentini) his words were "a pig is a pig". You can try to justify these murderers all you want but real people lost their lives at the hands of these murderers who are all too often being glorified by the ideological Left.
Coincidentally, Waverly Jones is one of two black cops named "Waverly" to be murdered by Black Panther/BLA types. The other is Waverly Brown, murdered during Brinks armored car robbery in 1981 which was a joint venture with left-wing terrorist group Weather Underground and in which Columbia professor Kathy Boudin participated.

That relationship was confrontational almost to the point of armed insurrection, and despite the gains in the civil rights movement it didn't get BETTER during the 70s. In Chicago, that history is VERY well known, and the revelations that "surfaced" a few years ago about police officers torturing suspects, blackmailing community leaders and the "anti-crime" program that helped transform the Vice Lords from an activist movement to a street gang were COMMON KNOWLEDGE for black people in the 1980s and 90s.

I get it. If black people commit crimes, it's police fault. Or white people fault. But never the thugs' fault.

Did something happen in the 80s to turn all of that completely around? Did somebody wave a magic wand of sweeping nationwide "police reform" to enact community policing and positive cooperative efforts between police departments and the residents that for two decades they had harassed, beaten and killed under racist department policies? Or did Ronny Raygun's "War on Crime" just give them a new set of code words to bury their original policies in successive layers of marketing and political correctness?

Nicholas Thomas wasn't harassed, much less for being black. He was a criminal who didn't want police to arrest him and did not shy from using a stolen car as a weapon to avoid that. He should not get a pass for criminal behavior just because of his skin color!

The problem BEGAN with the police,

No, the problem began with Thomas' criminal behavior.

and the onus was on them to fix it.

Criminals bear no responsibility?

But even if it HADN'T started with the police, even if the legacy of their past mistakes hadn't poisoned their relationship with their communities, even if the problem was simply the fact that black people are and have always been a race of assholes that refuse to cooperate with law officers, you know what? Police officers are public servants, and those assholes who don't cooperate with them are the public. The responsibility is on the police departments, NOT the public, to build a cooperative and trustful relationship with the community and work with members of the community to ensure the safety of all.

And when a thug (known for doing that before) is driving a 2 ton luxury sports car toward your fellow officer, what are you to do? Think about "cooperative relationships" or act in the split second you have to react?

So no, a lack of respect for police officers CANNOT and WILL NOT justify police officers responding in kind. The purpose of the police department is to serve the community; if it's respect you're looking for, go join the Marines

So if a thug starts yelling "fuck the police" police should remain meek and friendly?

Gonna have to call bullshit. I have seen WAY too many police chases begin this way without escalating into shots fired,

Nicholas Thomas was involved in at least two car chases before (the 2013 KSU case that got him the felony conviction and he also fled from police the day before the deadly encounter) so it's not like they always result in shots fired at the car for blacks either.
Besides, here is a case where a white woman was shot for trying to run a police officer over with her car:
Evidence report: Samantha Ramsey was intoxicated, ran over deputy's foot before he fatally shot her

especially so since there are witnesses who claim the car was stopped when the shooting started.

Police shot a beanbag at the car's tinted window after it was stopped. The witness who claims the car was stopped probably confused that for the gunshot. According to police, and consistent with the surveillance video, the car was moving at a relatively high speed when shot.

My initial reaction was "What the fuck are you talking about?" but then I realized you have no idea what this means and you're just spouting conservative talking poitns after all.

I know full well what it means. From education: if there are fewer blacks than whites (as percentage of population) admitted into colleges, then we must not treat individuals equally in admissions but have different standards for admission to achieve equal distribution of outcomes. That is pretty standard left wing philosophy, don't you agree? Translated into police shootings, it does not matter if black and white suspects are treated equally, if equal treatment results in "disparate outcome" then it's no good and "race conscious" policing is to be preferred. </progressoauthoritarian>

 

[fast]

Mr. Thomas would be alive if he had been shot and killed by others[?]

I doubt that very much.

It was meant to be a rhetorical question

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Read the title and immediately thought: Why would you shoot a dead man? Seems like a waste of a bullet.

 

[bilby]

At least your police are pro-active. Ours couldn't give a fuck!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ree-days-as-police-failed-to-investigate.html

Police Scotland really went downhill after they forced John Rebus into retirement.

The Scottish police really went downhill after their senior ranks started worrying more about rebranding the force as 'Police Scotland' than about actually doing police work.

Who cares about helping the public? Don't you know they have an image and a mission statement to maintain?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What is "until recently"?

Until the murder of Walter Scott

And shooting a suspect for merely fleeing hasn't been acceptable since the 1985 SCOTUS decision

It's NEVER been acceptable, even when it was (arguably) legal. And yet there is a difference between "what is acceptable" and "what police officers are known to do" and it is THAT difference that drives enmity between police departments and the communities they serve.

So your response is "Well, the unequal treatment is probably justified."

Not unequal treatment of individuals, but unequal outcomes if blacks are more likely to be combative toward police than whites.

But despite the cliches, individuals are not statistics. Both the media and the American public are willing to believe that ANY particular black person is more likely to be combative towards police and therefore a police officer who kills a black man probably has good reason to "feel threatened."

Just like the officer who killed Walter Scott "felt threatened" because Scott supposedly grabbed his taser.

Just like the officer who shot Levar Jones "felt threatened" because Jones "dove back into his car" to get his license.

Would you care to guess why that might be? Should I commit a further waste of my time asking you if you think there's something wrong when a community is almost as frightened of police officers as they are of gang bangers?

Yet statistics prove those fears unjustified (many more blacks get killed by other black civilians than by police and those killed by police are usually criminals like Thomas).

And if getting KILLED by police officers was the only thing they worried about, that would mean something. In an environment that includes a group who shoots at you twice a year and another group that beats you up and arrests you twice a month, one of those poses the more immediate threat.

And again, what does it have to do with what Thomas did?

Because you posed the question of why he tried to escape, which lead to the question of why police officers have elevated threat levels dealing with black people. Or, more specifically, why would they send twelve officers and a canine unit to arrest a guy over a probation violation?

The answer is that police officers have cultivated a reputation for the reckless use of force and black people no longer feel confident that the police will treat them with patience or understanding even when they're being entirely cooperative. Simply put: the police in this case showed up EXPECTING trouble, and Thomas lived up to their expectations.

The term "Pig" originates from the 1950s and 60s tensions at a time when police were WELL KNOWN for targeted harassment and sometimes even murder of black people on the flimsiest of pretexts.

And black nationalists were known for things like ambushing and murdering police, robbing banks, attacking prisons to free fellow thugs etc. Black power groups like the Panthers...

Didn't exist before 1966, at which time their most aggressive actions were the use of California open-carry laws to "patrol" police actions in black communities, a reaction to years of unchecked abuse of civil rights. The term "pig" didn't even originate from the black nationalists; it was originally an allusion to George Orwell's "Animal Farm"

On the other hand, it was way the hell back in 1946 when a group of police officers beat Issac Woodard within an inch of his life and permanently blinded him for supposedly being rude to a bus driver. It was 1955 when a County Sheriff famously greeted black spectators to the Emmet Till murder trial with a cheerful "Hello niggers!" It was only a couple years later that police in North Carolina arrested a nine year old black boy an charged him with rape because a white girl kissed him on the cheek. And those are just the cases that drew international outrage; black people in Chicago still remember the time in the early 90s when the police declared martial law in Cabrini Green because somebody ran over a puppy; there are people alive TODAY who remember when future mayor of Chicago Richard Daley Senior helped the police start a race riot on the south shore.

Just to be clear here: Are you seriously pushing the theory that police departments started being overly aggressive towards black people because of the Black Panthers?

That relationship was confrontational almost to the point of armed insurrection, and despite the gains in the civil rights movement it didn't get BETTER during the 70s. In Chicago, that history is VERY well known, and the revelations that "surfaced" a few years ago about police officers torturing suspects, blackmailing community leaders and the "anti-crime" program that helped transform the Vice Lords from an activist movement to a street gang were COMMON KNOWLEDGE for black people in the 1980s and 90s.

I get it. If black people commit crimes, it's police fault.

No, Derec. The Police committed crimes, and that is the Police's fault.

"Getting tortured into a confession" is not a crime.

"Getting blackmailed into shutting down rent-relief programs" is not a crime.

"Having a paid informant testify that you are a drug dealer and then taking a plea deal that includes 'stop helping black people move into the suburbs'" is not a crime.

"Having the police shut down every program your organization runs EXCEPT for the one asshole who is selling drugs out of the back because he's informing for them" is not a crime.

There are open secrets the Chicago police have been caught red handed doing, have admitted to doing, are documented as having done, in a few cases have even apologized for. Those things left a legacy of confrontation between the police and the community that became so toxic that by the 1990s the city had to completely reassess its policing strategy just to prevent an all-out war. Even then, the CPD still has operates three or four of the "black sites" that were established in the 80s that were used for holding suspects without charge, without trial, without a lawyer and without anything resembling due process.

But you're you, so I'm well aware that you're going to find a way to argue that Jon Burge was only torturing "thugs" and therefore his actions -- and everything the police ever did -- were justified and it's actually black people's fault for being hyper sensitive (or the Black Panthers' fault for making them that way).

The problem BEGAN with the police,

No, the problem began with Thomas' criminal behavior.

Yeah, because there's no record of police officers violating people's civil rights before Nicholas Thomas turned the ignition on that maseratti.

And lest you overlook the point once again, it comes down to this: Why was Thomas so afraid of the police?

and the onus was on them to fix it.

Criminals bear no responsibility?

Not for the dysfunctional relationship between the police and the community, no. There are a multitude of perfectly acceptable ways for police departments to deal with crime; abusing their power and antagonizing the community is not one of them.

And when a thug (known for doing that before) is driving a 2 ton luxury sports car toward your fellow officer, what are you to do?

Take a small step to the right and get the fuck out of his way. Which the officers actually DID.

So no, a lack of respect for police officers CANNOT and WILL NOT justify police officers responding in kind. The purpose of the police department is to serve the community; if it's respect you're looking for, go join the Marines

So if a thug starts yelling "fuck the police" police should remain meek and friendly?

Yes. When a "thug" starts yelling "fuck the police" the police should remain meek and friendly.

Because yelling "fuck the police" is not a crime. Even assholes have a right to free speech. And every police officer who respects the rights of the citizens under his protection more than he respects his own ego is, in fact, serving his community.

And wouldn't you know it? Everyone else in that crowd who ISN'T yelling "fuck the police" notices this. They notice how the police react, how they conduct themselves in those situations, whether they maintain their professionalism under pressure or loose their shit and become "thugs" themselves. And the police officer who responds to "fuck the police" with "Have a nice day" is a police officer who probably ISN'T shooting people in the back and then claiming he "feared for his life" just to cover his own ass.

I know full well what it means. From education: if there are fewer blacks than whites (as percentage of population) admitted into colleges, then we must not treat individuals equally in admissions but have different standards for admission to achieve equal distribution of outcomes. That is pretty standard left wing philosophy, don't you agree?

No, that's a right-wing talking point that deliberately mischaracterizes "left wing philosophy" for the purpose of generating righteous indignation by people who never actually TALK to liberals (namely, you).

Which has WHAT to do with black nationalists, again? Wait, I get it: you're about to explain to me that "race conscious" policing is just the agenda to force police departments to give special treatment to black people... I'm sorry, to "thugs"... and let them off the hook more often for their widespread criminality, an agenda that is being pushed by black nationalists like Van Jones and Barrack Obama who secretly control the government and are waging a war on white people everywhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Read the title and immediately thought: Why would you shoot a dead man? Seems like a waste of a bullet.

Common in wartime to make sure they're not faking it.

 

[Cerberus]

At least your police are pro-active. Ours couldn't give a fuck!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ree-days-as-police-failed-to-investigate.html

Police Scotland really went downhill after they forced John Rebus into retirement.

They're all dumb and totally dysfunctional to the point they make the Keystone Kops look dynamic and highly proficient. Any who have an IQ into double figures is considered over-qualified - and that's the senior ranks!

 

[Derec]

Until the murder of Walter Scott

It was a bad idea before this because you makes you subject to additional charges and also puts you at a higher risk of being on the receiving end of violence, justified or not. Had the cop caught up to Scott he would have had to tackle him and use force (and perhaps things like pepper spray) to subdue and handcuff him. Whereas had he not ran he might not even have gotten arrested.

It's NEVER been acceptable, even when it was (arguably) legal. And yet there is a difference between "what is acceptable" and "what police officers are known to do" and it is THAT difference that drives enmity between police departments and the communities they serve.

When I said "acceptable" I meant legally.
And police officers are human and can make mistakes. The more hostile your reaction to police is the more likely it is that you will be on the receiving end of violence, justified or not.

But despite the cliches, individuals are not statistics. Both the media and the American public are willing to believe that ANY particular black person is more likely to be combative towards police and therefore a police officer who kills a black man probably has good reason to "feel threatened."

Every individual case should be investigated individually. And you pretend like there haven't been controversial cases of whites getting killed by police. Only those receive much less media coverage and fewer (if any) protests.

Just like the officer who killed Walter Scott "felt threatened" because Scott supposedly grabbed his taser.

While the officer acted criminally, Scott acted stupidly and greatly increased the odds of something like this happening. Again, cop getting convicted is not bringing him back.

Just like the officer who shot Levar Jones "felt threatened" because Jones "dove back into his car" to get his license.

Yes, there are instances of unjustified shootings. That does not mean any and all instances of blacks getting shot are ipso facto unjustified.

And if getting KILLED by police officers was the only thing they worried about, that would mean something. In an environment that includes a group who shoots at you twice a year and another group that beats you up and arrests you twice a month, one of those poses the more immediate threat.

If you are getting arrested every two weeks you seriously need to reconsider what you are doing.

Because you posed the question of why he tried to escape, which lead to the question of why police officers have elevated threat levels dealing with black people. Or, more specifically, why would they send twelve officers and a canine unit to arrest a guy over a probation violation?

Because the underlying conviction was for trying to run over a police officer. Also because he managed to evade police the day before. So they assumed he would not want to go with them quietly and wisely brought some backup. But he still had a chance to be wise as well and go peacefully with them. Unfortunately, he didn't.

The answer is that police officers have cultivated a reputation for the reckless use of force and black people no longer feel confident that the police will treat them with patience or understanding even when they're being entirely cooperative.

Entirely cooperative? He wasn't cooperative in a single detail. How about trying to be cooperative for a change.
The fact is that a some people will blame cops no matter what.

Simply put: the police in this case showed up EXPECTING trouble, and Thomas lived up to their expectations.

They were prepared for trouble, which is a necessary precaution given his history. He still had an option to not cause trouble.

Didn't exist before 1966, at which time their most aggressive actions were the use of California open-carry laws to "patrol" police actions in black communities, a reaction to years of unchecked abuse of civil rights.

And that was an overt attempt to intimidate. But it didn't take them long to graduate to deadly violence. In 1967, Huey Newton, the Panther founder, murdered police officer John Frey. In 1968 a group of Black Panthers ambushed police resulting in the death of a Panther by the name of Bobby Hutton. And that was just the start.

The term "pig" didn't even originate from the black nationalists; it was originally an allusion to George Orwell's "Animal Farm"

Interesting etymology although pigs in AF weren't police. The black nationalists were very fond of using this particular slur against police though.

On the other hand, it was way the hell back in 1946 when a group of police officers beat Issac Woodard within an inch of his life and permanently blinded him for supposedly being rude to a bus driver.

Yes, there was some very ugly anti-black racism in US past. No question about it. It doesn't justify violence by the Panthers in 1960s/70s and it doesn't give the likes of Thomas an excuse to fight against legal arrests by the police in 2015.

Just to be clear here: Are you seriously pushing the theory that police departments started being overly aggressive towards black people because of the Black Panthers?

They certainly didn't help race relations; in fact, they undid what progress was done during the 60s by inflaming tensions and fostering distrust. When innocent patrolmen like Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini get murdered in cold blood (in 1971) just because they are police officers then the groups advocating and committing this violence are no better than any other domestic terrorists.

No, Derec. The Police committed crimes, and that is the Police's fault.

Crimes committed by police are police's fault. Crimes committed by black nationalists are black nationalists' fault - they are not police's fault.

"Getting tortured into a confession" is not a crime.

You mean like when Panthers tortured and murdered Alex Rackley in 1969 because they thought he was an informant?

"Getting blackmailed into shutting down rent-relief programs" is not a crime.

Citation needed.

"Having a paid informant testify that you are a drug dealer and then taking a plea deal that includes 'stop helping black people move into the suburbs'" is not a crime.

Citation needed.

"Having the police shut down every program your organization runs EXCEPT for the one asshole who is selling drugs out of the back because he's informing for them" is not a crime.

Citation needed.
But granted Panthers and others did things that were not crimes. That does not excuse their murders and other crimes they did commit in between potlucks and community outreach they did.

There are open secrets the Chicago police have been caught red handed doing, have admitted to doing, are documented as having done, in a few cases have even apologized for.

And what does what Chicago police did long before Thomas was even born do to justify what Thomas has done in Georgia?

But you're you, so I'm well aware that you're going to find a way to argue that Jon Burge was only torturing "thugs" and therefore his actions -- and everything the police ever did -- were justified and it's actually black people's fault for being hyper sensitive (or the Black Panthers' fault for making them that way).

No, but him acting in a despicable way doesn't justify others to commit crimes.

Yeah, because there's no record of police officers violating people's civil rights before Nicholas Thomas turned the ignition on that maseratti.

And what do those instances have to do with justifying Thomas' behavior? He tends to escalate. He escalated a speeding stop into aggravated assault. He escalated a probation violation arrest into a deadly shooting.

And lest you overlook the point once again, it comes down to this: Why was Thomas so afraid of the police?

I think he was more unwilling to go to prison (with a felony conviction it would be state prison, not just county jail) than afraid. If anything, his behavior shows he was tragically underestimating the danger posed by the police due to his behavior.

Not for the dysfunctional relationship between the police and the community, no. There are a multitude of perfectly acceptable ways for police departments to deal with crime; abusing their power and antagonizing the community is not one of them.

I disagree. They carry part of the responsibility.
And there are legitimate ways for people to air their grievances. Ambushing and murdering police officers is not one of them.

And none of this justifies Thomas trying to run over police officers instead of letting them arrest him.

Take a small step to the right and get the fuck out of his way. Which the officers actually DID.

What if the police officer in question was just a bit too slow?

Yes. When a "thug" starts yelling "fuck the police" the police should remain meek and friendly.

I disagree.

Because yelling "fuck the police" is not a crime.[/B] Even assholes have a right to free speech. And every police officer who respects the rights of the citizens under his protection more than he respects his own ego is, in fact, serving his community.

I am not suggesting he be arrested for it. But it does change the encounter for the worse. The cop might have been inclined to give you a warning but disrespectful behavior can get you a ticket.

And wouldn't you know it? Everyone else in that crowd who ISN'T yelling "fuck the police" notices this. They notice how the police react, how they conduct themselves in those situations, whether they maintain their professionalism under pressure or loose their shit and become "thugs" themselves. And the police officer who responds to "fuck the police" with "Have a nice day" is a police officer who probably ISN'T shooting people in the back and then claiming he "feared for his life" just to cover his own ass.

I am not advocating shooting anybody for yelling "fuck the police" but police officer doesn't have to be courteous to somebody like this either.

No, that's a right-wing talking point that deliberately mischaracterizes "left wing philosophy" for the purpose of generating righteous indignation by people who never actually TALK to liberals (namely, you).

Nonsense. That is the core of "affirmative action" programs and also behind things like "disparate impact" doctrine.

Which has WHAT to do with black nationalists, again? Wait, I get it: you're about to explain to me that "race conscious" policing is just the agenda to force police departments to give special treatment to black people...

It would fit well with the "disparate impact" doctrine.

 

[Togo]

Would you care to guess why that might be? Should I commit a further waste of my time asking you if you think there's something wrong when a community is almost as frightened of police officers as they are of gang bangers?

Yet statistics prove those fears unjustified (many more blacks get killed by other black civilians than by police and those killed by police are usually criminals like Thomas).

Citation needed.

Note that having more blacks killed by other blacks than by Police is not proof that 'these fears are unjustified', since the number of Police is so very small.

To compare, the number of people killed by the police in the UK in 2012 was 2. The number killed in the US was 410. Neither the crime rate nor the population difference go anywhere near to explaining this difference.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When I said "acceptable" I meant legally.

I know what you meant. But we're talking about the relationship between the police and the community, not the relationship between the police and the courts.

Every individual case should be investigated individually.

Yes. Without prejudice, bias, or preconception. That simply isn't happening in many cases. Most would say, TOO many.

Just like the officer who shot Levar Jones "felt threatened" because Jones "dove back into his car" to get his license.

Yes, there are instances of unjustified shootings. That does not mean any and all instances of blacks getting shot are ipso facto unjustified.

Of course not. But it reflects a pattern of thinking and a pattern of behavior that increases the likelihood of unjustified violence against black people. Those patterns need to be changed.

And if getting KILLED by police officers was the only thing they worried about, that would mean something. In an environment that includes a group who shoots at you twice a year and another group that beats you up and arrests you twice a month, one of those poses the more immediate threat.

If you are getting arrested every two weeks you seriously need to reconsider what you are doing.

Yeah, that's what the police commissioners said when the Sun Times called them on it. Then the investigator did a followup and found a list of people with frequent arrests -- in one case, a man who had been arrested forty times in a single year -- none of whom had were ever actually charged with a crime.

Not every case is that extreme. But there are ALOT of them. Some police officers get it into their heads that "resisting arrest" or "failure to obey" can be used as carte blanche to beat the living shit out of somebody who looks at them the wrong way.

Didn't exist before 1966, at which time their most aggressive actions were the use of California open-carry laws to "patrol" police actions in black communities, a reaction to years of unchecked abuse of civil rights.

And that was an overt attempt to intimidate.

Yes it was. So what? After twenty years of watching police officers illegally intimidating, beating and murdering black people in their own neighborhoods, they LEGALLY responded by brandishing weapons in their vicinity. The police responded by effectively declaring war, and war is exactly what they got.

Interesting etymology although pigs in AF weren't police.

No, the pigs in animal farm were former members of the oppressed class who rose to a position of power and then used that power to become oppressors themselves, ultimately rising to the ranks of a ruling class to the point that they were finally found to be acceptable to other humans and no longer considered farm animals. And yet, at the end of the day, even wearing top hats and fancy suits and dining with other farmers and bankers, a pig is still a pig.

Do I really need to explain to you what that analogy means?

On the other hand, it was way the hell back in 1946 when a group of police officers beat Issac Woodard within an inch of his life and permanently blinded him for supposedly being rude to a bus driver.

Yes, there was some very ugly anti-black racism in US past. No question about it. It doesn't justify violence by the Panthers in 1960s/70s

Nor does Panther violence in the 60s and 70s justify police reprisals OR their oppositional attitude towards the black community.

Which sort of leads to the question of why you brought it up in the first place.

They certainly didn't help race relations

It is not the custom of leftist radicals with a stated agenda of toppling the existing social order and building a new one in its place to seek to "improve race relations." That, again, is the responsibility of THE POLICE.

But please, tell me more about why it's really the Black Panthers' fault that police departments were intimidating and abusing black people in Oakland.

No, Derec. The Police committed crimes, and that is the Police's fault.

Crimes committed by police are police's fault. Crimes committed by black nationalists...

... are irrelevant to the question of "Why do the police have such a crappy relationship with the black community?"

"Getting tortured into a confession" is not a crime.

You mean like when Panthers tortured and murdered Alex Rackley in 1969 because they thought he was an informant?

No, I mean like when Jon Burge and his Midnight Crew handcuffed Darrell Cannon to the floor and sexually abused him with a cattle prod until he confessed to the murder they were trying to pin on him.

"Getting blackmailed into shutting down rent-relief programs" is not a crime.

Citation needed.

Do your own homework.

But granted Panthers and others did things that were not crimes. That does not excuse their murders and other crimes they did commit in between potlucks and community outreach they did.

Nor do their crimes invalidate their community outreach.

Not for the dysfunctional relationship between the police and the community, no. There are a multitude of perfectly acceptable ways for police departments to deal with crime; abusing their power and antagonizing the community is not one of them.

I disagree. They carry part of the responsibility.

So the police are NOT responsible for creating violent leftist opposition groups through their authoritarian antics, but the ENTIRE BLACK COMMUNITY bears some responsibility for police brutality because of the Black Panthers???

Because yelling "fuck the police" is not a crime.[/B] Even assholes have a right to free speech. And every police officer who respects the rights of the citizens under his protection more than he respects his own ego is, in fact, serving his community.

I am not suggesting he be arrested for it. But it does change the encounter for the worse. The cop might have been inclined to give you a warning but disrespectful behavior can get you a ticket.

You can't get a ticket for standing around in public exercising your right to free speech.

But nevermind, we're past that now. We have established that you believe the police are utterly blameless in America and it's really black people's fault that law enforcement officers react to them the way they do because they collectively created the Black Panthers.

I am not advocating shooting anybody for yelling "fuck the police" but police officer doesn't have to be courteous to somebody like this either.

He does if he wants that person -- and the people who live in his community -- to cooperate with him without having to resort to force against them every single time.

And that's not the point: not all police officers do. Not all feel they HAVE to. Overcoming the divide between law enforcement and the community is hard to do; beating the defiance out of them is easy. In exactly the same way that "good police work and investigative methodology" is a lot harder to do than "Shove a cattle prod up his ass until he confesses."

Nonsense. That is the core of "affirmative action" programs and also behind things like "disparate impact" doctrine.

lol if you say so.

 

[ksen]

Guys, just a few more years of shock and awe in black communities by the police and they'll be welcome there with a flower-strewn parade.

 

[Derec]

Yes. Without prejudice, bias, or preconception. That simply isn't happening in many cases. Most would say, TOO many.

Yes. Every time a black suspect is either killed by police or even dies in custody there is a lot of prejudice, bias and preconceptions that it must have been "murder" no matter the facts.

Of course not. But it reflects a pattern of thinking and a pattern of behavior that increases the likelihood of unjustified violence against black people. Those patterns need to be changed.

The pattern of behavior by some suspects, especially black suspects who have been indoctrinated into hating the police, increases the likelihood of both justified and unjustified violence against them. Walter Scott's killing was unjustified but it would not have happened had he not ran from the police. Nicholas Thomas' shooting is justified and it also would not have happened had he not gunned the stolen Quattroporte toward the officers.

Yeah, that's what the police commissioners said when the Sun Times called them on it. Then the investigator did a followup and found a list of people with frequent arrests -- in one case, a man who had been arrested forty times in a single year -- none of whom had were ever actually charged with a crime.

Does that indicate that he was innocent or that the DA office is not doing their jobs?

Not every case is that extreme. But there are ALOT of them. Some police officers get it into their heads that "resisting arrest" or "failure to obey" can be used as carte blanche to beat the living shit out of somebody who looks at them the wrong way.

You are exaggerating again, but a lot of interactions that are not that serious can escalate due to hostile behavior from the suspect. Just look at Sandra Bland. Or Nicholas Thomas too, as he had ample opportunity to turn himself in for the probation violation. He didn't have to die had he just gone a little bit smarter about it.

After twenty years of watching police officers illegally intimidating, beating and murdering black people in their own neighborhoods, they LEGALLY responded by brandishing weapons in their vicinity. The police responded by effectively declaring war, and war is exactly what they got.

They took weapons into the state capitol. Imagine if a group of white supremacists tried to enter a state capitol. Would you defend their actions?

No, the pigs in animal farm were former members of the oppressed class who rose to a position of power and then used that power to become oppressors themselves, ultimately rising to the ranks of a ruling class to the point that they were finally found to be acceptable to other humans and no longer considered farm animals. And yet, at the end of the day, even wearing top hats and fancy suits and dining with other farmers and bankers,

I still do not see a clear connection with police. I think "pig" is a general term of abuse not connected to AF and Straight Dope agrees.

If you thought the term pig arose in the 1960s, you're in for a surprise. The OED cites an 1811 reference to a "pig" as a Bow Street Runner--the early police force, named after the location of their headquarters, before Sir Robert Peel and the Metropolitan Police Force (see above.) Before that, the term "pig" had been used as early as the mid-1500s to refer to a person who is heartily disliked.
The usage was probably confined to the criminal classes until the 1960s, when it was taken up by protestors. False explanations for the term involve the gas masks worn by the riot police in that era, or the pigs in charge of George Orwell's Animal Farm.

a pig is still a pig.

Exactly what a Black Panther thug said when he murdered a black police officer in cold blood.

Which sort of leads to the question of why you brought it up in the first place.

It's an example of black radical, violent, anti-police group that still enjoys a great deal of sympathy on the Left. Is it any wonder then that thugs like Nicholas Thomas are supported as well?

It is not the custom of leftist radicals with a stated agenda of toppling the existing social order and building a new one in its place to seek to "improve race relations."

Black Panthers were a racist organization who wanted to impose a Maoist dictatorship on the US. And thanks for admitting that they didn't seek better race relationship - people often ignore those things when they talk about Panthers merely wanting to defend blacks from those evil whites.

That, again, is the responsibility of THE POLICE.

Both sides in a conflict carry responsibility.

But please, tell me more about why it's really the Black Panthers' fault that police departments were intimidating and abusing black people in Oakland.

Their founder murdering a police officer in Oakland in 1967 and basically getting away with it probably had something to do with it.

... are irrelevant to the question of "Why do the police have such a crappy relationship with the black community?"

Racist black groups targeting police for murder is definitely relevant to relationship between police and blacks.

No,

Of course you don't ...

I mean like when Jon Burge and his Midnight Crew handcuffed Darrell Cannon to the floor and sexually abused him with a cattle prod until he confessed to the murder they were trying to pin on him.

It seems a lot of these stories involve a single individual who was punished for it . On the other hand, many Panthers became legislators (like for example Bobby Rush).

Nor do their crimes invalidate their community outreach.

So what? Mussolini made trains run on time. Doesn't mean much compared to the bad stuff, does it?

So the police are NOT responsible for creating violent leftist opposition groups through their authoritarian antics, but the ENTIRE BLACK COMMUNITY bears some responsibility for police brutality because of the Black Panthers???

I did not say police in the past do not carry their share of responsibility. I also did not say the "entire black community" bears responsibility, only radicals and those that sympathized with radicals. Also those (like Thomas) that think that opposing police is a good thing. There is no evidence Smyrna or Cobb police did anything wrong. But Nicholas Thomas did plenty wrong. And his hostile attitude toward police can be traced back to radical anti-police, anti-white groups.

You can't get a ticket for standing around in public exercising your right to free speech.

I did not mean get a ticket for the outburst (although depending on jurisdiction it may be actionable) but whatever caused the interaction in the first place. Police usually have wide latitude when stopping people for traffic violations and somebody yelling "fuck the police" or "you are all pussies" is not doing themselves any favors.

But nevermind, we're past that now. We have established that you believe the police are utterly blameless in America

I never said that. However, you seem to think that black radicals are utterly blameless. You also seem to think any black person who tries to run over police with their car is utterly blameless as well.

He does if he wants that person -- and the people who live in his community -- to cooperate with him without having to resort to force against them every single time.

That person has already shown he has no intention of being cooperative.

And that's not the point: not all police officers do. Not all feel they HAVE to. Overcoming the divide between law enforcement and the community is hard to do; beating the defiance out of them is easy. In exactly the same way that "good police work and investigative methodology" is a lot harder to do than "Shove a cattle prod up his ass until he confesses."

So what do you suggest police should have done in the Nicholas Thomas case? They went to his house, told his mother that he should turn himself in. He didn't so they go to the tire store. He guns the Maserati toward them. They know he was conbvicted of doing the same thing before. What would Crazy Eddie do?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You are exaggerating again, but a lot of interactions that are not that serious can escalate due to hostile behavior from the suspect. Just look at Sandra Bland.

Yes. Let's look at Sandra Bland. The woman who was dragged out of her car, manhandled and arrested for refusing to extinguish a cigarette in her own car. Actions that even his own superiors admit violated both department policy and their own safety protocols. Actions which were, by ALL objective accounts, completely unnecessary and excessive and resulted in Sandra's death.

After twenty years of watching police officers illegally intimidating, beating and murdering black people in their own neighborhoods, they LEGALLY responded by brandishing weapons in their vicinity. The police responded by effectively declaring war, and war is exactly what they got.

They took weapons into the state capitol. Imagine if a group of white supremacists tried to enter a state capitol.

What do you mean "imagine?" White supremacists used to RUN the state capitol.:laughing-smiley-014

That, again, is the responsibility of THE POLICE.

Both sides in a conflict carry responsibility.

Not in a conflict between abuser and abused, no. An abuser is also responsible for the retaliation he incurs in the case that his actions constitute a violation of his victim's rights.

But please, tell me more about why it's really the Black Panthers' fault that police departments were intimidating and abusing black people in Oakland.

Their founder murdering a police officer in Oakland in 1967 and basically getting away with it probably had something to do with it.

Oh yes, the murder of a police officer in 1967 totally explains police abuse of black suspects in the 1940s and 50s.



Huey Newton was a time traveler?

... are irrelevant to the question of "Why do the police have such a crappy relationship with the black community?"

Racist black groups targeting police for murder is definitely relevant to relationship between police and blacks.

For racist white cops who assume that all black people are responsible for the actions of the Black Panthers, sure.

I mean like when Jon Burge and his Midnight Crew handcuffed Darrell Cannon to the floor and sexually abused him with a cattle prod until he confessed to the murder they were trying to pin on him.

It seems a lot of these stories involve a single individual who was punished for it.

Burge wasn't the only one who did it. He was just the only one who got caught.

On the other hand, many Panthers became legislators (like for example Bobby Rush).

So did many cops. For that matter, so did many white supremacists.

On the other hand, only You and Dylan Roof would imply that Bobby Rush is a criminal JUST because he was a member of the Black Panthers.

You can't get a ticket for standing around in public exercising your right to free speech.

I did not mean get a ticket for the outburst

Yes you did. But way to shift the goalposts.

He does if he wants that person -- and the people who live in his community -- to cooperate with him without having to resort to force against them every single time.

That person has already shown he has no intention of being cooperative.

And so the officer has to make a choice. He can either stand up for himself against that uncooperative douchebag and show everyone around him what a bad idea it is to question his Authoritah, OR, he can keep his cool and restrain himself and show everyone around him that he is a rational man who doesn't seek to escalate conflict and is only trying to do his job and keep everyone safe. If the "thug" escalates beyond verbal threats and taunts, gets belligerent, interferes and goes too far, suddenly the COP looks pretty good for having shown restraint until it becomes necessary to tase the guy for being an asshole. Then it isn't a case of "police brutality" so much as "community-level schadenfreude."

And that's not the point: not all police officers do. Not all feel they HAVE to. Overcoming the divide between law enforcement and the community is hard to do; beating the defiance out of them is easy. In exactly the same way that "good police work and investigative methodology" is a lot harder to do than "Shove a cattle prod up his ass until he confesses."

So what do you suggest police should have done in the Nicholas Thomas case?

Do: Send plainclothes officers to arrest him in unmarked cars and not make their presence known until they have him stationary in the manager's office with all the exits covered.

Don't: Send uniformed police officers in marked cars who have only a vague idea what their suspect even looks like, arriving on the scene with no idea where he is, and failing to determine his location until WELL AFTER he has gained access to a vehicle, which, by the way, is PART OF HIS JOB.

It's basically the same logic of the drug raid: There are alot of situations where you might want to send a heavily armed SWAT team in full tactical gear, but "search warrant on suspicion of marijuana possession" isn't one of them.

They went to his house, told his mother that he should turn himself in. He didn't so they...

Should have gone to his house AGAIN and arrested him on his front doorstep, which used to be standard procedure for probation violations.

What would Crazy Eddie do?

Crazy Eddie would do whatever SOLVES THE PROBLEM and not get sidetracked into an attempt at thrilling heroics.

 

[Derec]

Yes. Let's look at Sandra Bland. The woman who was dragged out of her car, manhandled and arrested for refusing to extinguish a cigarette in her own car. Actions that even his own superiors admit violated both department policy and their own safety protocols. Actions which were, by ALL objective accounts, completely unnecessary and excessive and resulted in Sandra's death.

No. Her suicide resulted in her death, not her arrest. But there is already a thread on her.

Not in a conflict between abuser and abused, no. An abuser is also responsible for the retaliation he incurs in the case that his actions constitute a violation of his victim's rights.

And by ideologically declaring whites as "abuser" and blacks as innocent "abused" you think you can excuse black criminals from any wrongdoing, including trying to run over a cop with a stolen Maserati?

Oh yes, the murder of a police officer in 1967 totally explains police abuse of black suspects in the 1940s and 50s.

It doesn't, but neither does the latter justify the former. You seem to be very eager to deny that Panthers and other black supremacist groups had any responsibility for their actions.

Burge wasn't the only one who did it. He was just the only one who got caught.

And plenty of Panthers got away with it. I think both groups should be punished - you only think one should.

On the other hand, only You and Dylan Roof

This ridiculous comparison says way more about you than about me.

would imply that Bobby Rush is a criminal JUST because he was a member of the Black Panthers.

He was a member of a murderous criminal organization which sought to overthrow the US government and impose a Maoist dictatorship with Rassengesetze which would legally advantage blacks, as documented in their 10 point program.

Yes you did. But way to shift the goalposts.

You misconstruing my words does not equal shifting goalposts.

Don't: Send uniformed police officers in marked cars who have only a vague idea what their suspect even looks like, arriving on the scene with no idea where he is, and failing to determine his location until WELL AFTER he has gained access to a vehicle, which, by the way, is PART OF HIS JOB.

Gunning the vehicle toward police because he didn't want to get arrested is definitely not part of their job. And even if their strategy wasn't ideal and you have a better one (I am not police and so would not know but assume the police had some reason to act the way they did) the principal responsibility is still on the perp, not the police.

Should have gone to his house AGAIN and arrested him on his front doorstep, which used to be standard procedure for probation violations.

They tried that.

Crazy Eddie would do whatever SOLVES THE PROBLEM and not get sidetracked into an attempt at thrilling heroics.

Concretely, what would you do? You were overruled on strategy and you are standing in the Goodyear parking lot. You see Thomas in the stolen Maserati barreling toward your colleague and his dog. Do you shoot the perp?

 

[Derec]

The grand jury is deliberating in the case of the shooting of Anthony Hill. That's the crazed naked guy that was shot in Chamblee. You know way back from the beginning of this thread.
#BLMers have encamped around the county courthouse in Decatur for the occasion. I am just glad they are not blocking the Chamblee-Tucker Rd. (where the shooting happened) as I use it quite often.

Somebody brought them snacks.

Some ugly white guy got himself arrested, apparently on outstanding warrants. Way to stay under the radar genius!

It's quite cold in Atlanta these days btw. Wet too.

Oh, and by the way, even though the dead guy was nuts, he had a girlfriend.

 

[ZiprHead]

Apparently even crazy people know how to show a lady a good time.

 

[repoman]

so, a couple nights ago a mentally ill white guy was naked outside my apartment shouting like crazy. He got arrested after they gave him a tyvek like jumpsuit.

However he never made any threats or anything close to a threatening sudden move. I have a video of it. So far away that no details can be seen.