Thanks Davide et. al. I think I see why this is a thing, after some more context. The cop’s lawyer was arguing that Garner had died because of his asthma, which he was complaining about /in the video of him being strangled to death/.
So since the coroner ruled it was “homicide” rather than “natural causes”, the coroner was negating the “asthma killed him” defense. WTF.
In what sense was this not worth a trial?
Homicide simply means man was killed by man.
However, the question for the grand jury was if there was enough evidence to go to trial, they have apparently determined that it was justified. It doesn’t matter what the cop’s lawyer said, as only the prosecutor talks to the grand jury. He is the one who failed Eric Garner.
Do you truly not understand the difference?
Cameras on cops mean that every hour a cop is on duty, he’s under surveillance. Not a bad thing, given the extraordinary powers and authority granted them, and the history of abusive behavior that is recounted at this and other websites that aren’t fully captured by authoritarian sock puppets.
Cameras on every building, lamp post, street corner, and traffic light mean that every moment every person is outside of their home, they are under surveillance.
Those two things are not the same.
So, do you not get it, or are you just going for the “gotcha” ???
I understand the point, but “cameras on cops” seems to me to be a real mixed bag.
The thought is that this will increase accountability, yada yada, and that’s probably true. That’s the upside.
The downside is a further mechanization of justice where good cops loose the ability to use discretion and
make decisions. As an example: a part-time deputy used to work for me in a job (he was IT, but did overflow stuff on the weekends when the sheriff’s office needed extra help (parades, etc.)), and if he’d catch some teens with dope he’d dump it out and send them on their way. Had he been “instrumented” with a camera, he’s have no choice but to arrest. This is the downside.
So yes, accountability would rise (and would probably result in better outcomes often), but it is an increase in taking the human factor out of policing (think of it as the analog of mandatory minimum sentencing for policing), and it is a further slide into the ubiquitous panopiticon.
In short, be careful what you wish for…
You raise an interesting point, and that is a downside I had not considered.
The way that some have proposed the data captured by police body cameras be handled would mitigate the downside, however.
Basically, the video/audio is completely inaccessible to the police (to prevent tampering and destruction) until there is a court order that releases it for review. As I recall, @shaddack has described the way this process might work, in considerable detail.
In the example you’ve described above, the teens who were let off the hook would have no motive to have the video examined.
FWIW, that part-time deputy sounds like a really decent fellow. It restoreth my soul to get evidence that the endangered (some will say mythological) species Constabularis benevolentius has been sighted in the wild in recent memory.
There is a distinct difference. @doctorow 's examples have govt agencies watching you, period. Without cause, justification, reason, consent, knowledge, etc etc.
A camera equipped police person would derive tacit consent from either your choice to interact, your need to interact, their need or another of the public’s need. You would know who and how you were being recorded and there would be a reason known for it.
It’s a pretty big difference.
I think the problem is that too many white people don’t think it’s a problem, at all. Because it happens less to whites, especially upper middle class whites. I think what @marilove, @anon15383236, and others are trying to get across here is that you can talk about one without the other. A racist institution, built to protect the power structure, sure, it’s going to impact some of the power structure, but it’s going to disproportionately impact those not in the power structure. it’s like saying the actions of Bull Conner, sure, they were racist, but that the REAL problem was police brutality. Do you think that? the question is what/who are the police there to protect. it’s not people they view as the dangerous demographic, which tends to be people of color, or more specifically African Americans. And our society tends to reinforce that in numerous ways. I don’t really understand why it’s so hard for some to look this in the face and see it as a problem and as something that isn’t up to black people to fix…
Slap that shit on a t-shirt and hand them out for everyone to wear…
My position is that I do not support racism, and that means I cannot support any campaign to stop police brutality against specific “races” as long as police brutality has real effects on others outside that race. Since that condition exists, I will only support campaigns against police brutality, because I am not willing to be a racist. I do not believe in the existence of reverse racism, there is only racism. If people who are upset about the death of Eric Garner do not want to consider me an ally, then as far as I am concerned they have their own racist banjos and can play any tune they like on them. I will continue to do what I think is right, and they can too, and the only people who will benefit from our lack of unity are our mutual enemies. So be it; we have made our choices.
My apologies to many others in this thread who have made comments or replies that deserved my attention and acknowledgement. I just don’t have the time right now, and won’t be back before Monday at the earliest. @anon50609448, I still don’t agree with you, but as usual I am forced to respect your able defense of your position.
Edit: the word “race” has technical meaning that isn’t aligned with the way it’s used in this thread, which is why I often use quotes (not scare quotes, real quotes). There is no such thing as a black “race” - Australian aborigines and Dravidians are not strongly racially linked to African Americans. Here in this thread, racists have shown their true colors by insisting that Mr. Garner’s skin color matters more than his actual name… not a peep of protest when somebody skips that.
Okay, I think it’s clear now where you’re coming from: you’re not especially bothered that black men are far, far, FAR more likely to suffer such abuse.
And, ironically, you think that people who are especially bothered by that irrefutable fact are the real racists, instead of people who think like you’re thinking here.
Got it.
Thanks for showing your true colors.
ETA:
So you see acknowledging race/racial factors as racism?
How very egalitarian. Or it would be anyway, once people are treated equally.
But they aren’t now, so your attempt at egalitarianism serves to reinforce the status quo.
The fact is, you are going to need these people you won’t support to succeed, so that you won’t be a racist.
Oh I see. “Why are we talking about the racial implications, even though I don’t deny those racial implications, when white people have it bad, too? What about the white people?” - @Medievalist
Are you aware that the default discussion IS white people? That if we don’t discuss the racial implications of this issue, it will be ignored? You don’t appear to be thinking about this critically, or fully. WHY do you suppose the racial implications are there in the fucking first place? Maybe it’s because people already don’t give any fucks about people of color. Maybe that’s why!
And willfully continuing to ignore that young black men are TWENTY ONE FUCKING MORE TIMES likely to get killed by the police is fucking dangerous and racist. Yes, it’s racist, at this point; when the statistics are clear, it’s racist. Or at the very least it’s supporting racism, and I don’t really see much of a fucking difference.
Ignoring race is not the answer. Why do you think it is? You haven’t even supported that racist assumption. You just keep repeating it, like it’s actually a thing. You’re wrong.
If you think ignoring the race implications of this subject makes you an ally, you would be wrong.
Honestly. I’m just going to put this here, again.
The SCARE QUOTES around races are not mine! And the emphasis on that last sentence is not mine! He felt comfortable saying this bullshit and then added his own emphasis on the most racist part of the entire statement and also included scare quotes around the word races! But he insists he’s not racist and in fact he’s truly an ally.
Oh, before he mentions it again (because I’m sure he will), this is also a quote from him: “I built a biracial family…”
He “built” a biracial family. What an odd way to phrase it. Not, “I am part of a biracial family” or similar phrasing, but “I built a biracial family” - as if he went through some great effort. I’m not impressed, honestly. You don’t get an award or extra cookies for knowing people of color, or being in a biracial family (you didn’t “build” anything).
Not to mention how often he must tell us how racist he definitely is not. Because when people aren’t racist, they totally have to make sure people are aware of that. If they don’t, what? We might mistake you for a racist?
Well, I wonder why that is.
Oh, and I’m sure he considers himself so polite. Isn’t he so very polite? And so he believes he and his racist bullshit deserve respect. Because he shares his racist opinions oh so politely, and he knows people of color, so clearly, I should respect his opinion.
Can you tell I don’t? That I really, really don’t?
Edited to add another quote from him:
I’m asking people to stop mocking us and refusing to engage with our ideas unless we center our language around making special allowances for one race or another.
Yes, special allowances. Because that’s not a racist dog whistle at all. Hell, it’s a dog whistle in the fight for marriage equality, too. And yet, he repeats it here, with no qualms. I AM AMAZED.
I also include HIS emphasis on the word “unless” – implying that if we don’t stop talking about the racial implications of police brutality (which is apparently is a “special allowance”), then … well, actually, who is this “us” you’re talking about, @Medievalist? You and people like you? Oh, dear, no! You might get mocked! Heaven’s no! What a terrible thing – young black men are TWENTY ONE times more likely to get shot by police than white men (which you are!), and yet you’re more concerned about being mocked for your racist opinions than you are for those men.
And just what is a “special allowances”? From the context, it appears to be the mere MENTION that there are racial implications to this discussion.
Remember this is what this ally who claims to have “built” a biracial family has advocated for, while also on the other coin claiming he “doesn’t want to stop talking about race” – because that’s not a contradiction at all. But he claims that talking about race means special allowances for “one race or another”. Convenient what that “one race” is in this discussion, eh?
Jesus, it’s like he’s a correspondent for Fox News.
Yeah, but this kind of fly-by-night crime forgiveness also tends to benefit those already less likely to be brutalized by a cop. Relying on individual officer discretion, with history as a guide, will end up with more unfairness, not less. Let’s instead end racist drug laws AND stop racist brutalizing cops, officially
Even given the worst possible reading, arguments about police brutality against black Americans is the “these are your mothers, sisters and daughters” argument to get men to understand why sexual assault is bad. I have a friend who despises that argument because we should care about people being sexually assaulted even if they aren’t related to us. If I’m being ruthlessly uncharitable to people calling for justice for black Americans then I could say, “Well, they ought to care about all people instead.” But, like I’ve said above, I’m pretty sure that if you did actual surveys you’d find that people calling this out as a racist problem are far more likely to care about brutality in general than people who are not.
Try to describe to me that actions that could be taken to reduce police brutality against black people that would not reduce police brutality. What kind of bizarre turn of policy could reduce the abuse that young black men suffer at the hands of police while simultaneously causing a balancing increase in the abuse that old white women suffer? We aren’t instituting white-beating quotas here.
I’m trying to imagine a future where police are so scared of public backlash against brutality against black Americans that they would never engage in it but they still feel secure being violent towards white Americans. That has no air of plausibility about it at all. And even if that did come about, if it didn’t come with an increase in brutality against white people, it would be an improvement, right? I mean, I’m not going to argue that 1 dead black man and 20 dead white men is better than 20 dead black men and 1 dead white man.*** But 1 dead black men and 1 dead white man surely is better, isn’t it?
*** Even though I think this argument could easily be made for America right now. As I say, this just isn’t going to happen.
Serpico speaks…
Perhaps just one if it is a cute blonde… otherwise we might be waiting for a while.
Good to hear from Serpico, despite the place/rag in which he chose to speak.
I want to be clear. I’m not talking about all police. There are plenty of good police, and I hear from them on a daily basis. But the police are becoming our enemy, and society is becoming the enemy of the police. Somebody with clear, objective and impartial thinking needs to come to their senses and find a solution.
I agree that we should officially end the WOD and racist policies in policing, and I agree that discretion would benefit some groups more than others, but I don’t think that taking discretion away from cops is a good thing. Look what happened when the craze for minimum sentencing happened: prison populations skyrocketed. The minimums were supposed to level the playing field, but that’s not what happened: abused groups became more abused.
IMO the blind application of “justice” is never a good thing. We need more humanity in law enforcement, not more mechanization.
