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

[TomC]

Two teens got into a fight, one was arbitrarily treated roughly while the other almost disregarded. You are looking for justification in the gaps here.

Justification isn't what I'm looking for here. I'm looking for understanding. That's why I posted what I did about lack of a substantive response from the PD. And why that looks so bad, in my opinion.
Tom

And you struggle with the systemic issues raised by others even when it stares you in the face?

In this thread,

What's staring me in the face is the tendency people have to latch on to any bit of evidence that supports their preconceived notions.

It's not just the SJWs or BLM supporters. It's all over. Trumpistas. Feminazis. Russian Putinists. Vegans. Democrats. TeaPartiers.
You name it.

In this particular thread, a tiny little corner of the internet, what's staring me in the face is that a tiny bit of video is enough to support the idea that cops are bad. And that's all that matters, if you already believe that.

That's what's staring me in the face, here.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

tiny bit of video is enough to support the idea that cops are bad. And that's all that matters

If this is directed at me, you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

 

[Gospel]

But I'm glad TomC said that. not many may know or consider this, but committing a racist act does not automatically make the person who committed the act racist. That's like claiming a person who gets a speeding ticket is a speeder every moment they are behind the wheel of a car.

I'd go as far as saying being nuts about the discussion of racism to the point that any mere mention of it warrants that the discussion is to be written off as folks overreacting or jumping to conclusions is irony at its best.

 

[TomC]

tiny bit of video is enough to support the idea that cops are bad. And that's all that matters

If this is directed at me, you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

Nope.
I'm pretty sure I quoted another poster.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

In this particular thread, a tiny little corner of the internet, what's staring me in the face is that a tiny bit of video is enough to support the idea that cops are bad. And that's all that matters, if you already believe that.

That's what's staring me in the face, here.
Tom

My bad. It looked like a generalization since it didn't use terms like "you" or "respectfully Jimmy". Instead, it said Thread, which means everyone who posted comments in the thread that seemed to say "cops are bad".

 

[Gun Nut]

I base my opinion on available evidence and witness statements. For example, Joseph claims heard that a group of teens was going to attack another teen at the mall so he went there to stop it. Joseph then says that the teen never showed up. should have ended of the story there. But nope, according to Joseph, he confronts Z'kye's friend, and Z'kye stepped up.

All these folks in this thread questioning who started it are obviously ignoring the information that is out there to make Z'kye the possible culprit "until more information comes out". Then we have two officers kneeling on the back of a nonresisting teen (two fucking officers) and yall still want to make Z'kye at fault for that "until more information comes out".

Edit: removed line crossed.

Still can't get past "the person that started it is the one that should have been treated more harshly (and your eyes are all you need to see that)".
Rhea has a valid response, above... in that it address what I asked, as opposed to whatever it is you are doing (claiming I have an assertion, denying context matters... IDK what else). I will reply to Rhea shortly.

 

[Gospel]

Still can't get past "the person that started it is the one that should have been treated more harshly (and your eyes are all you need to see that)".

That's not at all what I said. People on this thread made the argument that "we don't know what happened before", and "we do not know who the aggressor really was". My post(s) discuss the available evidence in an attempt to get people to consider using the available evidence and understanding why the police's actions appear to be racist and why (if the Police investigation determines) it's a civil rights violation.

It seems as though no one wants to do that for some reason. I'm not sure why. It's like they think I believe minds can't change when more evidence is available. Isn't that how science works? You have a theory based on the evidence, but it seems folks rather make up entirely new scenarios and argue via symbolism than actually discuss what's in the video or statements made to the press by the parties involved.

 

[Gun Nut]

It's sad one cannot even ask the question, "but did either of them say anything"?

I can see why you mifght think that is sad. But, honestly, that’s not what happened here.

It’s been rebutted pages ago, not ignored.

”Did either of them say anything?”
there was not any time for that.

You can look at the time stamp on the video, and you can count the seconds between when the white kid was pulled from the top and when the black kid was slammed to the ground and cuffed.

And you can say the “maybe he said,” sentence in your head, and you can see your clock run out before you are done with one word.


So you can ask the question. Someone did.
And the ANSWER to that question is, “there are no words that can be uttered in that time span that would justify the action.”

Indeed, the answer is, “There is no combination of two words that could fit into that timespan shown on the video.”

So what could the cop possibly have heard?
At most, ONE WORD.

without the response being somewhere in the vicinity of "no further investigation or thought is necessary -

No further investigation is really necessary to try to uncover what the black teen could have said in 0.25 seconds that would have made him more dangerous than the boy who was on top of him.

OK, OK.. I get it...

I hope so.
Check the thread. People did not ignore, they rebutted.
Check the video. See if you can time yourself saying something that would have mattered.

And that…. That is where the cop is wrong. He never gave that teen any chance to “give up.” He gave one teen that chance, but no tthe other. Even thought they were doing the same thing, in the same place at the same time, and one was clearly on the bottom of the fight when the police arrived.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I disagree and will explain why.
you said there was only a quarter of a second for the cops to have gotten any information - I assume the point is that they spent the whole .25 seconds determining which one was the black one? like, instead of determining if either had a weapon> Anyway, I disagree with the timeline you laid out as well as disagreeing with that entire premise.

In the linked video, at 44 seconds in, we see the cops first arrive on the scene, running from around a corner, one of which leaves the camera's frame for 2 seconds
At 47 seconds into the video, exactly at the moment both cops come into frame again, the video completely freezes for 2 seconds (I tried reloading and replaying several times - it happens every time). It isn't until 49 seconds into the video (a full 5 seconds after the cops arrive, not 0.25) that the video jumps back to life and the black kid is on the floor with the male cop on top of him, and the white boy is still being pulled into the couch by the female cop. We can see the female cop having a conversation with the white boy for approximately 3 seconds. At the same time, the black boy that was on the ground already with the male cop on top of him, turns his head towards the male cop (away from the camera) while pushing himself up off the ground, and attempts to lunge in a forward direction (away from the cop). By this time, 53 seconds into the video, both cops are now attempting to stop the black boy from fleeing, and proceed to cuff him.

The cops had sufficient time to absorb both visual and auditory signals - at least 5 seconds, not a fraction of a second.
A 3 second conversation between the white kid and the female cop occured before the female cop turned her attention away from him.
The male cop began to restrain the black boy after he turned his head towards the male cop and attempted to lunge away
We cannot know if the black boy said anything while his head was turned away from the viewer, back towards the cop as he was attempting to break away.

Now that I put this much effort into looking this closely at the second-by second play, I changed my mind.
I no longer need to hear what either boy was saying, even though I know for fact that words were exchanged, at least by the white kid. I am now positive that the primary reason why the cops treated these boys differently was that the white boy "surrendered", and the black boy attempted to flee. You cuff a fleeing suspect so they do not attempt to flee again.

 

[laughing dog]

Two teens got into a fight, one was arbitrarily treated roughly while the other almost disregarded. You are looking for justification in the gaps here.

Justification isn't what I'm looking for here. I'm looking for understanding. That's why I posted what I did about lack of a substantive response from the PD. And why that looks so bad, in my opinion.
Tom

And you struggle with the systemic issues raised by others even when it stares you in the face?

In this thread,

What's staring me in the face is the tendency people have to latch on to any bit of evidence that supports their preconceived notions.

It's not just the SJWs or BLM supporters. It's all over. Trumpistas. Feminazis. Russian Putinists. Vegans. Democrats. TeaPartiers.
You name it.

In this particular thread, a tiny little corner of the internet, what's staring me in the face is that a tiny bit of video is enough to support the idea that cops are bad. And that's all that matters, if you already believe that.

That's what's staring me in the face, here.
Tom

I think you are looking in the mirror, because this tiny little thread is about two particular police officers in particular.

 

[Gun Nut]

Still can't get past "the person that started it is the one that should have been treated more harshly (and your eyes are all you need to see that)".

That's not at all what I said. People on this thread made the argument that "we don't know what happened before", and "we do not know who the aggressor really was". My post(s) discuss the available evidence in an attempt to get people to consider using the available evidence and understanding why the police's actions appear to be racist and why (if the Police investigation determines) it's a civil rights violation.

It seems as though no one wants to do that for some reason. I'm not sure why. It's like they think I believe minds can't change when more evidence is available. Isn't that how science works? You have a theory based on the evidence, but it seems folks rather make up entirely new scenarios and argue via symbolism than actually discuss what's in the video or statements made to the press by the parties involved.

I'm happy to discuss your thread of thought relating to WHY these police actions APPEAR to be racist. That IS what I am talking about also.
YES, YES, and YES! That is how science works... you seek information to explain your observations.

Here, we see a difference in how two boys were treated. Observation shows the differences in how these two boys acted. Conclusion: different behaviors elicit different responses. What would be racist is assuming that the boy that calmed down within 3 seconds while obeying the cops orders MUST have been the white one, and the one that tried to run away from the cops, after looking right at them, MUST have been the black one.

 

[Gospel]

: different behaviors elicit different responses.

What were the different behaviors?

What would be racist is assuming that the boy that calmed down within 3 seconds while obeying the cops orders MUST have been the white one, and the one that tried to run away from the cops, after looking right at them, MUST have been the black one.

Is this make-believe land again? what is the connection to the evidence?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Two teens got into a fight, one was arbitrarily treated roughly while the other almost disregarded. You are looking for justification in the gaps here.

Justification isn't what I'm looking for here. I'm looking for understanding. That's why I posted what I did about lack of a substantive response from the PD. And why that looks so bad, in my opinion.
Tom

And you struggle with the systemic issues raised by others even when it stares you in the face?

In this thread,

What's staring me in the face is the tendency people have to latch on to any bit of evidence that supports their preconceived notions.

It's not just the SJWs or BLM supporters. It's all over. Trumpistas. Feminazis. Russian Putinists. Vegans. Democrats. TeaPartiers.
You name it.

In this particular thread, a tiny little corner of the internet, what's staring me in the face is that a tiny bit of video is enough to support the idea that cops are bad. And that's all that matters, if you already believe that.

That's what's staring me in the face, here.
Tom

Wow. I recommend reading posts instead of staring at them next time.

 

[Gospel]

 

[Gun Nut]

I can appreciate why many people see a skin color difference, assign it as a cause, and then apply every affect to that cause. It's pretty kneejerk.

Not really. Can you provide any explanation for why the officer doesn't detain the other teen, who actually gets up from his seat? The person on the top is typically understood as the aggressor.

The white kid could have actually run away at that point.

The cops didn't even give a shit about his presence at that point because neither of them even noticed he got up. The police were both laser-focused on the black kid & it takes the land of makebelieve to answer why without calling it racism.

OR.. you can ask what the nature of their 3 second conversation was for a far more simple explanation as to why the cop was satisfied that the boy wasn't a threat or a flight risk.

 

[Gospel]

I can appreciate why many people see a skin color difference, assign it as a cause, and then apply every affect to that cause. It's pretty kneejerk.

Not really. Can you provide any explanation for why the officer doesn't detain the other teen, who actually gets up from his seat? The person on the top is typically understood as the aggressor.

The white kid could have actually run away at that point.

The cops didn't even give a shit about his presence at that point because neither of them even noticed he got up. The police were both laser-focused on the black kid & it takes the land of makebelieve to answer why without calling it racism.

OR.. you can ask what the nature of their 3 second conversation was for a far more simple explanation as to why the cop was satisfied that the boy wasn't a threat or a flight risk.

OR, I can have the courtesy to inform you that I haven't learned to speak or understand gibberish.

 

[Gospel]

OR.. you can ask what the nature of their 3 second conversation was for a far more simple explanation as to why the cop was satisfied that the boy wasn't a threat or a flight risk.

I'll humor you anyway. So the cop trusted Franko based on a 3-second conversation? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Gun Nut]

: different behaviors elicit different responses.

What were the different behaviors?

What would be racist is assuming that the boy that calmed down within 3 seconds while obeying the cops orders MUST have been the white one, and the one that tried to run away from the cops, after looking right at them, MUST have been the black one.

Is this make-believe land again? what is the connection to the evidence?

None... this is what racism would look like. That it is not "connected" to the evidence is exactly WHY this does not look to be racially driven.. This is an odd thing for you to ask. It's like we are talking about the police and you say that cops use PHASERS. I correct you and say no, they use TASERS.. PHASERS are from Star Trek.... and then you respond "is this sci fi? what does Star Trek have to do with this"

 

[Gospel]

None... this is what racism would look like. That it is not "connected" to the evidence is exactly WHY this does not look to be racially driven.. This is an odd thing for you to ask. It's like we are talking about the police and you say that cops use PHASERS. I correct you and say no, they use TASERS.. PHASERS are from Star Trek.... and then you respond "is this sci fi? what does Star Trek have to do with this"

Do you know what the Civil Rights Act is? Do you think Civil rights exist? Do you think Racism is real? Do you think racism is not real like Star Trek phasers?

 

[Gun Nut]

OR.. you can ask what the nature of their 3 second conversation was for a far more simple explanation as to why the cop was satisfied that the boy wasn't a threat or a flight risk.

I'll humor you anyway. So the cop trusted Franko based on a 3-second conversation? Is that what you're saying?

Depends on what you mean by "trust", because obviously one can "trust" that someone is not getting ready to stab you in the face or run away, without "trusting" them to manage your 401k retirement account, or feed your pets while away. So, yes, she trusted him enough not to murder anyone for at least the next few seconds while she helped stop the other guy from running away.

I just timed myself saying, "Thank you officer, I'm glad you're here. That guy just tried to kill me". and then replying to myself "you're OK Stay right there". That (make-believe) conversation took 2.5 seconds.... before you ask what this has to do with reality I will tell you <sigh>... it tells us how much information can potentially be exchanged in 3 seconds.

 

[Gun Nut]

None... this is what racism would look like. That it is not "connected" to the evidence is exactly WHY this does not look to be racially driven.. This is an odd thing for you to ask. It's like we are talking about the police and you say that cops use PHASERS. I correct you and say no, they use TASERS.. PHASERS are from Star Trek.... and then you respond "is this sci fi? what does Star Trek have to do with this"

Do you know what the Civil Rights Act is? Do you think Civil rights exist? Do you think Racism is real? Do you think racism is not real like Star Trek phasers?

Yes, Yes, Yes, No.
I can acknowledge the rain without believing everything is always wet.
To claim the civil rights act comes into play here requires you can attribute the difference in behavior of the cops to a difference in their race.
I think I quite clearly pointed out the parts of the documented video evidence supporting a far simpler explanation... one kid was struggling to get away and the other sat still on the couch.

I have not yet seen a response to my post on the observations... do you have another set of facts from what I laid out?

Or does none of that matter to you because of your personal experiences with racism preventing you from seeing any other explanation?
I do not mean to name-call, but I see that as racist. You see a back kid being treated differently than a white kid and that is all you seem to need to know.... the color of their skin tells the entire story... no other information is pertinent?

Racism exists, therefore all differences are race-based?