Police response to N.J. mall fight sparks outrage after Black teen cuffed as white teen watches

[Jarhyn]

Which goes into a problem that police create with their STUPID and ESCALATORY behavior of shouting and slamming. They gave one teen a chance to “not resist” and they did not give the other teen a chance to “not resist.”

Their STUPID behvior of charging in, they do it with traffic stops as well, SHOUTSHOUTSHOUT conflicting instructions or surprise tackles and then blame the citizen for “not following orders” or “resisting” in their surprise.

It was two teens fighting in a mall. They pulled one off. Pull him off and pause while the other rolls over. Say without shouting, “it’s over, just stay still,” and then they could serve and protect. But that’s not the choice. It’s always this stupid, escalating drill sargeant shit.

It's because they are all chomping at the bit to have AUTHORITEH, to massage their power-over boners.

If they had no immediately available weapons, they would probably try less stupid, less violent resolutions first.

 

[atrib]

Franco has stated that he was not placed under arrest. Based on this statement alone, a judge would likely have found that Franco was never placed under arrest at any point during the event.

The law talks about reasonable belief, not actual belief. The law (as described) also does not talk about whether someobody believes they are 'arrested' but whether it would be reasonable for them to believe they are not free to go.

In the case of seizures, the standard is what a reasonable person interacting with the police would believe as to whether they were free to leave. Franco was present at the scene, interacted with the police, and does not believe that he was taken into police custody at any time during the encounter. There is no reason to believe that Franco does not fit this reasonable person standard. The courts don't have a "reasonable person" on standby who fits a set of test measurements - as to what constitutes a reasonable person is left to the discretion of the judge and/or the jury. If there were a court hearing related to this matter, the judge would likely find Franco's statement that he was not placed under arrest to be a significant factor in deciding the question of whether Franco had actually been placed under arrest.

Franco was put on to the couch and the female cop appears to have indicated to him 'stay there'. I would say a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave.

Its not black or white and there are many factors that play into this. Whether a person has been placed under arrest is a question that gets asked in courtrooms all the time because it affects subsequent police actions like searches and Miranda warnings. And courts rule in different way depending on the specific facts of the case. The concept of arrest is NOT a binary proposition with clearly defined rules as you appear to believe. You need to read the case law instead of wallowing in your ignorance if you are actually interested in the topic. I had posted a link in an earlier post that you would find informative.

I am not going to respond to your attempts to derail this thread anymore. This thread is about why the police considered Husain to be a bigger threat than Franco, and whether their behavior was a result of racial bias.

 

[Gun Nut]

What was the white boy saying to the cops when they arrived?
What was the black boy saying to the cops when they arrived?

Was one of them saying "i'm good... OK.. settling down now"?
Was on of them saying "I'm gonna kill that motherfucker... get your fucking hands off me or I'll fuck you up"?

Would that be a more significant difference between the boys than their race, in terms of how one might react to them?
YA THINK?

Why make up imaginary events when you can look at the video and see that the black kid was just laying there silent?

I didn't make anything up and I asked the same question about both boys. YOU made up "the black boy was just laying there silent" while cleverly excluding the whole part I was asking questions about. You did this by skipping over the entire engagement and going all the way to the end of the sequence of events; ".... [and then later on we see] he was just laying there silent".

 

[Gun Nut]

No, I'm not missing the point. I'm trying to make the understanding of the facts as clear as possible. The only definition of detained/arrested that would include Husain but not Franco is one where you have to have been in cuffs.

If you were really trying to understand the facts as clear as possible you'd familiarise yourself with US law. I do appreciate you being honest, regrettably, honesty is not a good look for you in this case.

"In cuffs" certainly implies "detained". "not in cuffs" does not imply "not detained". Think of a simple traffic stop. You are detained while the cop is investigating your traffic infraction. Most people manage to stay out of cuffs during that process.

What "in cuffs" implies is the need for the suspect to physically calm down / stop being a threat to people around, or that the cops intend to arrest.

Do to my my security-related profession, I have been in close proximity to several physical altercations that involved the police.
You can be swinging away at someone one second, and when the cops make their presence known, you can hold up your hands, make eye contact with the cop, and in as normal a tone as possible simply say "I'm cool.. I'm cool"... and the cop will move on to the next perceived threat immediately.
If, instead you continue to fight or fail to respond to a cop how they want to see you respond while being perceived as a threat to someone, you are getting knocked the fuck down. that is how it is. There is no time for woke gentleness "oh.. let's consider the socioeconomic factors in why this person continues to sound and act like a threat.. and now is acting like a threat to me".
No.. the fighter that "gives up" upon being approached by a cop is fine and the one that does not give up is less than fine.

 

[Gospel]

No, I'm not missing the point. I'm trying to make the understanding of the facts as clear as possible. The only definition of detained/arrested that would include Husain but not Franco is one where you have to have been in cuffs.

If you were really trying to understand the facts as clear as possible you'd familiarise yourself with US law. I do appreciate you being honest, regrettably, honesty is not a good look for you in this case.

"In cuffs" certainly implies "detained". "not in cuffs" does not imply "not detained". Think of a simple traffic stop. You are detained while the cop is investigating your traffic infraction. Most people manage to stay out of cuffs during that process.

What "in cuffs" implies is the need for the suspect to physically calm down / stop being a threat to people around, or that the cops intend to arrest.

Do to my my security-related profession, I have been in close proximity to several physical altercations that involved the police.
You can be swinging away at someone one second, and when the cops make their presence known, you can hold up your hands, make eye contact with the cop, and in as normal a tone as possible simply say "I'm cool.. I'm cool"... and the cop will move on to the next perceived threat immediately.
If, instead you continue to fight or fail to respond to a cop how they want to see you respond while being perceived as a threat to someone, you are getting knocked the fuck down. that is how it is. There is no time for woke gentleness "oh.. let's consider the socioeconomic factors in why this person continues to sound and act like a threat.. and now is acting like a threat to me".
No.. the fighter that "gives up" upon being approached by a cop is fine and the one that does not give up is less than fine.

Oh come off it with your scenarios and let's talk about the video. Could Franko (according to what you see in the video) have been considered the victim of assault in the eyes of the police based on the police's behavior?

Edit: Forgot to add that does it not also look like the police considered Husain the perpetrator (gotta be extra with yall even though it's implied).

 

[Rhea]

No.. the fighter that "gives up" upon being approached by a cop is fine and the one that does not give up is less than fine.

Note that Franco did not "give up on being approached by the cops."
He "gave up" when the cops gave him an opportunity to do so.

They did not give that opportunity to Husain.


The cops arrived and grabbed Franco while he was still punching. He had not "given up" when they laid hands on him. The male cop grabbed him, and let him go and he "gave up" when there were no cop hands on him.

For Husain, there were no moments when the cops hands were not on him.


So once again, the cops gave the two boys different opportunities.
Franco was given the opportunity to "give up,"
Husain was not.

Why?

 

[Gospel]

What was the white boy saying to the cops when they arrived?
What was the black boy saying to the cops when they arrived?

Was one of them saying "i'm good... OK.. settling down now"?
Was on of them saying "I'm gonna kill that motherfucker... get your fucking hands off me or I'll fuck you up"?

Would that be a more significant difference between the boys than their race, in terms of how one might react to them?
YA THINK?

Why make up imaginary events when you can look at the video and see that the black kid was just laying there silent?

I didn't make anything up and I asked the same question about both boys. YOU made up "the black boy was just laying there silent" while cleverly excluding the whole part I was asking questions about. You did this by skipping over the entire engagement and going all the way to the end of the sequence of events; ".... [and then later on we see] he was just laying there silent".

I made up "the black boy was just laying there silent". Bruh none of what you said happened in the video. Not a single thing and I made up Husain laying there silent as the officers kneeled on and cuffed him? Wonderful.

 

[Gospel]

No.. the fighter that "gives up" upon being approached by a cop is fine and the one that does not give up is less than fine.

Note that Franco did not "give up on being approached by the cops."
He "gave up" when the cops gave him an opportunity to do so.

They did not give that opportunity to Husain.


The cops arrived and grabbed Franco while he was still punching. He had not "given up" when they laid hands on him. The male cop grabbed him, and let him go and he "gave up" when there were no cop hands on him.

For Husain, there were no moments when the cops hands were not on him.


So once again, the cops gave the two boys different opportunities.
Franco was given the opportunity to "give up,"
Husain was not.

Why?

I think Gun Nut is on a PC that can't run MP4's because clearly the video wasn't viewed.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think micro-analysing incidents like this misses the point. In one post, whether the black kid had bent his knee in an effort to stand up seemed relevant. Should we do a careful geometric analysis and estimate the knee angle?

I think if it walks like racism and quacks like racism, it probably is racism. But who cares anyway? Why hyper-analyze one particular incident, and get a piece of "anecdotal evidence"? There are many hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of such incidents every day! Isn't the TREND of far greater import than one specific incident in New Jersey?

And we know — or should know — the trend. Many studies have shown that blacks are discriminated against at EVERY stage of the "justice" process. Blacks are more likely than whites to attract complaints, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be frisked, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be denied effective counsel, more likely to be found guilty, more likely to get a long sentence, and more likely to be denied parole.

Those facts have been demonstrated in careful statistical studies. That won't change even if we somehow conclude that one particular incident in New Jersey was not racist.

 

[Rhea]

I think micro-analysing incidents like this misses the point.

Isn't the TREND of far greater import than one specific incident in New Jersey?

And we know — or should know — the trend.

Those facts have been demonstrated in careful statistical studies. That won't change even if we somehow conclude that one particular incident in New Jersey was not racist.

I think these discussion attempt to find out where the bottom of their barrel is. We keep expecting that when it is clear as day, they will, at long last, acknowledge that a racist event happened, even ONE.

And when they do not, when they make excuses, and special pleadings and derails and gish gallops and straw men, we get a better understanding of not only what the current climate really is, but also a better understanding of what the minority people around us see when we are not around.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think micro-analysing incidents like this misses the point. In one post, whether the black kid had bent his knee in an effort to stand up seemed relevant. Should we do a careful geometric analysis and estimate the knee angle?

I think if it walks like racism and quacks like racism, it probably is racism. But who cares anyway? Why hyper-analyze one particular incident, and get a piece of "anecdotal evidence"? There are many hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of such incidents every day! Isn't the TREND of far greater import than one specific incident in New Jersey?

And we know — or should know — the trend. Many studies have shown that blacks are discriminated against at EVERY stage of the "justice" process. Blacks are more likely than whites to attract complaints, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be frisked, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be denied effective counsel, more likely to be found guilty, more likely to get a long sentence, and more likely to be denied parole.

Those facts have been demonstrated in careful statistical studies. That won't change even if we somehow conclude that one particular incident in New Jersey was not racist.

Yup, they're telling us not to believe our own eyes.

 

[Gospel]

Topic:


User1: What if it was shaped like an oval? Would it fit?
User2: Just put the circle in the hole and STFU.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think micro-analysing incidents like this misses the point.

Isn't the TREND of far greater import than one specific incident in New Jersey?

And we know — or should know — the trend.

Those facts have been demonstrated in careful statistical studies. That won't change even if we somehow conclude that one particular incident in New Jersey was not racist.

I think these discussion attempt to find out where the bottom of their barrel is. We keep expecting that when it is clear as day, they will, at long last, acknowledge that a racist event happened, even ONE.

And when they do not, when they make excuses, and special pleadings and derails and gish gallops and straw men, we get a better understanding of not only what the current climate really is, but also a better understanding of what the minority people around us see when we are not around.

It's as if they don't understand that we can see the mask slipping and know there are times that they take it off.

I think micro-analysing incidents like this misses the point. In one post, whether the black kid had bent his knee in an effort to stand up seemed relevant. Should we do a careful geometric analysis and estimate the knee angle?

I think if it walks like racism and quacks like racism, it probably is racism. But who cares anyway? Why hyper-analyze one particular incident, and get a piece of "anecdotal evidence"? There are many hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of such incidents every day! Isn't the TREND of far greater import than one specific incident in New Jersey?

And we know — or should know — the trend. Many studies have shown that blacks are discriminated against at EVERY stage of the "justice" process. Blacks are more likely than whites to attract complaints, more likely to be stopped, more likely to be frisked, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be denied effective counsel, more likely to be found guilty, more likely to get a long sentence, and more likely to be denied parole.

Those facts have been demonstrated in careful statistical studies. That won't change even if we somehow conclude that one particular incident in New Jersey was not racist.

Yup, they're telling us not to believe our own eyes.

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

 

[Gun Nut]

No, I'm not missing the point. I'm trying to make the understanding of the facts as clear as possible. The only definition of detained/arrested that would include Husain but not Franco is one where you have to have been in cuffs.

If you were really trying to understand the facts as clear as possible you'd familiarise yourself with US law. I do appreciate you being honest, regrettably, honesty is not a good look for you in this case.

"In cuffs" certainly implies "detained". "not in cuffs" does not imply "not detained". Think of a simple traffic stop. You are detained while the cop is investigating your traffic infraction. Most people manage to stay out of cuffs during that process.

What "in cuffs" implies is the need for the suspect to physically calm down / stop being a threat to people around, or that the cops intend to arrest.

Do to my my security-related profession, I have been in close proximity to several physical altercations that involved the police.
You can be swinging away at someone one second, and when the cops make their presence known, you can hold up your hands, make eye contact with the cop, and in as normal a tone as possible simply say "I'm cool.. I'm cool"... and the cop will move on to the next perceived threat immediately.
If, instead you continue to fight or fail to respond to a cop how they want to see you respond while being perceived as a threat to someone, you are getting knocked the fuck down. that is how it is. There is no time for woke gentleness "oh.. let's consider the socioeconomic factors in why this person continues to sound and act like a threat.. and now is acting like a threat to me".
No.. the fighter that "gives up" upon being approached by a cop is fine and the one that does not give up is less than fine.

Oh come off it with your scenarios and let's talk about the video. Could Franko (according to what you see in the video) have been considered the victim of assault in the eyes of the police based on the police's behavior?

Edit: Forgot to add that does it not also look like the police considered Husain the perpetrator (gotta be extra with yall even though it's implied).

What does that have to do with what I was replying to?
How the police initially react is based entirely on how the two pudulists initially react to their presence, once it is made known and orders are shouted. That is it. They are there to enforce the peace, not deliver post-transgression justice to whomever is deserving of it in your or anyone else's opinion.
I offer as a very likely explanation for the way the two kids were handled, the fact that cops generally match the intensity level of what they are faced with, and then deescalate through verbal or physical means as appropriate to the level and type of intensity they are confronted with.
I have not heard any audio associated with that video... is there audio somewhere?

Who started the fight, who is the "victim", which kid is a bully, which one does his homework, which one is part of a gang... none of that makes any difference to what happens once the police arrive to break it up.

 

[Gun Nut]

No.. the fighter that "gives up" upon being approached by a cop is fine and the one that does not give up is less than fine.

Note that Franco did not "give up on being approached by the cops."
He "gave up" when the cops gave him an opportunity to do so.

They did not give that opportunity to Husain.


The cops arrived and grabbed Franco while he was still punching. He had not "given up" when they laid hands on him. The male cop grabbed him, and let him go and he "gave up" when there were no cop hands on him.

For Husain, there were no moments when the cops hands were not on him.


So once again, the cops gave the two boys different opportunities.
Franco was given the opportunity to "give up,"
Husain was not.

Why?

I think Gun Nut is on a PC that can't run MP4's because clearly the video wasn't viewed.

I was suggesting more clarity could be found in the audio. It totally could be my PC at fault if there was supposed to be audio that I didn't hear. My line of thinking started with the question of what was being said to the cops by each of the boys while all this was happening.

 

[Rhea]

I offer as a very likely explanation for the way the two kids were handled, the fact that cops generally match the intensity level of what they are faced with, and then deescalate through verbal or physical means as appropriate to the level and type of intensity they are confronted with.

Right.

And the cops arrived to see the white teen ON TOP in the fight and PUNCHING DOWN and they decided to treat him much better than the one who was, when they arrived, ON THE BOTTOM of the fight and FACE DOWN.

Can you really not see why the argument is bankrupt that the police had any reason in any way to treat the top person in the fight better than the bottom person?

Seriously What ON EARTH could they have seen to cause them to decide to take the top person in the fight and move him off and then immediately CUFF THE BOTTOM PERSON?



There is no excuse. There is no audio that you can imagine that would make the bottom person the more dangerous.

Nothing explains that, except racism.

 

[Metaphor]

In the case of seizures, the standard is what a reasonable person interacting with the police would believe as to whether they were free to leave. Franco was present at the scene, interacted with the police, and does not believe that he was taken into police custody at any time during the encounter.

As I've said a number of times: irrelevant. Franco's actual belief was irrelevant. Franco's actual beliefs about what 'arrest' and 'detained' mean, about whether he was free to go, all irrelevant.

There is no reason to believe that Franco does not fit this reasonable person standard.

The standard is not: is Franco a reasonable person and what did he actually believe. The standard is what would a reasonable person have believed in the situation. They're not the same thing.

The courts don't have a "reasonable person" on standby who fits a set of test measurements - as to what constitutes a reasonable person is left to the discretion of the judge and/or the jury.

Well, yes. Therefore what Franco believed or said he believed are irrelevant.

If there were a court hearing related to this matter, the judge would likely find Franco's statement that he was not placed under arrest to be a significant factor in deciding the question of whether Franco had actually been placed under arrest.

It would possibly help to establish some facts about the scenario, but actual belief is irrelevant. For example, if Husain (the cuffed boy) had said 'I believed I was free to go', the judge would almost certainly say that was an unreasonable belief about the situation.

I think Franco does not know the difference between detained and arrested and his use of the words in interview reflect that. I also believe that in his situation, no reasonable person would believe they were free to go. (And if Franco thought he was free to go, that was an unreasonable belief).

Its not black or white and there are many factors that play into this. Whether a person has been placed under arrest is a question that gets asked in courtrooms all the time because it affects subsequent police actions like searches and Miranda warnings. And courts rule in different way depending on the specific facts of the case. The concept of arrest is NOT a binary proposition with clearly defined rules as you appear to believe. You need to read the case law instead of wallowing in your ignorance if you are actually interested in the topic. I had posted a link in an earlier post that you would find informative.

If you think a reasonable person would think they were free to go, had they been in Franco's position, I think you are wrong. Had I been in Franco's position, the last thought in my mind would be 'you can just get up and leave and nothing will happen'.

 

[Metaphor]

But who cares anyway? Why hyper-analyze one particular incident, and get a piece of "anecdotal evidence"?

Because the livelihoods of at least two people are on the line. It matters very much.

 

[Gun Nut]

.. and who removes the audio from a video that was taken from a phone before posting it, and to what end? Isn't that a lot of effort to do? I mean, I have a GoPro and it doesn't record audio at all... but a phone always does, doesn;t it? Why woldn't it and wouldn't it be a pain to remove it?

I offer as a very likely explanation for the way the two kids were handled, the fact that cops generally match the intensity level of what they are faced with, and then deescalate through verbal or physical means as appropriate to the level and type of intensity they are confronted with.

Right.

And the cops arrived to see the white teen ON TOP in the fight and PUNCHING DOWN and they decided to treat him much better than the one who was, when they arrived, ON THE BOTTOM of the fight and FACE DOWN.

Can you really not see why the argument is bankrupt that the police had any reason in any way to treat the top person in the fight better than the bottom person?

Seriously What ON EARTH could they have seen to cause them to decide to take the top person in the fight and move him off and then immediately CUFF THE BOTTOM PERSON?



There is no excuse. There is no audio that you can imagine that would make the bottom person the more dangerous.

Nothing explains that, except racism.

You are stuck on the notion that the cops are reacting to who they think the aggressor is. And I understand that.... it's emotional. People desire justice, but that is not the cops job. The guy on top might look like the aggressor at the moment in time the cops are arriving on the scene, but just arriving on the scene you have no idea what was happening a moment before - and it is not the priority of things to work out at that moment. The guy on top looked like the aggressor to me too from the beginning, without hearing audio... but without the audio it just looks like he swung at the other boy for no reason whatsoever... which is less likely than a verbal exchange of any sort.. but that is beside the point... and that is the point of this post.. that it is completely irrelevant that the white kid appears to be totally in the wrong FOR APPEARING TO START THE FIGHT. This is about how cops react to people when they arrive on the scene if they FAIL TO STOP FIGHTING.
Questions of who started it and who is going to jail (if anyone) comes after everyone has calmed the fuck down and poses no threat to anyone.

What I saw in the video does not answer the question of what verbal exchange took place in the 3 seconds the fight was initially being broken up that caused the cops to treat the two boys differently.

If we can find out that the answer is "nothing relevant", then so be it... maybe racism... but I think you are dismissing out of hand that which we do not know, which could potentially explain what we saw, in the interest of sticking to a narrative.

 

[Rhea]

No, you misunderstand my post. Let me clarify

You are stuck on the notion that the cops are reacting to who they think the aggressor is.

Nope. I am not caring about who is "the aggressor." Not who started it. I agree that doesn't matter to the cops.

I am talking about who appears more dangerous. Who appears more likely to give the cops trouble. Who appears more capable of giving the cops trouble. Who, in others words, gives reasons for the cops to respond aggressively.

It's the stronger one. The more dangerous one. The one on top.

And I understand that.... it's emotional. People desire justice, but that is not the cops job.

Nope. I'm not arguing about justice. I'm arguing about what makes the cops decide to treat one teen like they are aggressive and dangerous and the other like they are not.

The guy on top might look like the aggressor at the moment in time the cops are arriving on the scene,

And as you said above, and here is what you wrote:

the fact that cops generally match the intensity level of what they are faced with,

Right. And how did they judge that "intensity"?
They had one teen on top. Intense.
One teen on bottom. Less intensity.


That's my argument. In direct response to your claim - that cops will match their reaction to the intensity they are faced with...

except they didn't

.. that it is completely irrelevant that the white kid appears to be totally in the wrong FOR APPEARING TO START THE FIGHT.

I never argued about who started the fight. I am not arguing that now. I am arguing which teen showed which INTENSITY when the cops arrived. What signals did the cops get to decide on their course of action.

They didn 't know who started it, or why. All they knew was that they had two boys, and one was fighting with more intensity - he was on top. And they DID NOT use that information to restrain the more intense fighter. They pulled him off.

This is about how cops react to people when they arrive on the scene if they FAIL TO STOP FIGHTING.

They both failed to stop fighting at the moment the cops laid their hands on them. The top boy was still actively punching when he was pulled off. The cops gave him time, with no hands on him to calm down. To "give up."

The bottom boy was not given that chance.

Why.

Questions of who started it and who is going to jail (if anyone) comes after everyone has calmed the fuck down and poses no threat to anyone.

What I saw in the video does not answer the question of what verbal exchange took place in the 3 seconds the fight was initially being broken up that caused the cops to treat the two boys differently.

If we can find out that the answer is "nothing relevant", then so be it... maybe racism... but I think you are dismissing out of hand that which we do not know, which could potentially explain what we saw, in the interest of sticking to a narrative.

No. I am talking about what the cops saw and how they reacted to it.

The cops saw a thing, you say they would then judge what they see - intensity - and react proportionately.

But they didn't; it had an inverse proportion. Why. Why did the cops violate everything you just said was reasonable?