Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Police Brutality & Violence in the US

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Police Brutality & Violence in the US

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 462 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1053507
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    I’m sure we agree making selling individual cigarettes a crime is a stupid law. How about jaywalking or theft or assault? I’m sure the lines we draw will have more to do with other concerns that police overreach.

    We do agree on the first part.

    If you want to reduce incidents of police on citizen violence, then reduce the opportunity for same. Save violence for violent crimes and stop using the police to enforce what we both agree are stupid laws.

    Regarding the identify thing, yes there should be some threshold where you have to give your name so they can write it on the ticket. Should a cop be allowed to say I’m resisting arrest and put me in a choke-hold if I refuse?

    If you are resisting arrest, then violence is called for, right? You’ve empowered the state to take sanction against people who’ve violated the state’s rules. If they refuse to submit, you’ve authorized force.

    Anything but submissive, immediate compliance is resisting arrest. Doesn’t require striking the officer. Even saying “don’t put your hands on me” counts, or passively resisting.

    Which is what you want, right? Disobey a police officer and you want them to use force to ensure compliance.

    Otherwise, what’s the point? “Stop or I’ll say stop again”?

    ETA: Let me add, on the identity question, that it really depends on the circumstances. I know you’re aiming to draw some contradiction in my position to play gotcha, but getting stopped while you’re in the act of jaywalking or some other misdemeanor is different from being approached walking down the street minding your own business.

    You mean like someone going out for a jog and then being stopped by the police?

    Either you’re required to prove your identity or you’re not.

    If you honestly believe that it doesn’t take much of a pretense to stop someone and you believe people should be forced to prove their identity when stopped then you’re already admitting it doesn’t take much for a cop to force you to prove your identity.

    Unless it’s not a crime to refuse.

    #1053525

    kit444
    Participant

    You mean like someone going out for a jog and then being stopped by the police?
    Either you’re required to prove your identity or you’re not.
    If you honestly believe that it doesn’t take much of a pretense to stop someone and you believe people should be forced to prove their identity when stopped then you’re already admitting it doesn’t take much for a cop to force you to prove your identity.
    Unless it’s not a crime to refuse.

    I’m not really sure if you’re arguing with or against me at this point. Sometimes I think you just can’t stop debating just for the sake of doing so.

    Yes, police have discretion (in asking for your identity and in the use of force) and sometimes they abuse it. They’re human. They may abuse that discretion if the crime you are accused of is robbing a convenience store or selling loose cigarettes. You wouldn’t advocate for eliminating the first law because of police overreach. If a law is shitty, police overreach is not the primary reason to repeal it.

    At any rate, you’re deflecting. When this thread was focused on Ferguson, you defended the cop’s actions and there was enough evidence to justify it. Now in this case where the evidence is less ambiguous, suddenly it’s not the cop’s fault because he shouldn’t have been enforcing that law in the first place. My point is, even if the law was something we both considered legitimate, the cop’s reaction would have been excessive. The issue here isn’t the bad law, it’s the administration of it. You don’t address police misconduct by reducing the number of laws (although there may be plenty of other reasons to do so), but by regulating that conduct in how they enforce the number of laws we have.

    #1053527

    DavidF
    Participant

    So libertarians oppose taxes on cigarettes but feel there’s no need for any discussion of how and when police can escalate use of force to lethal levels?

    Y’all are weird.

    #1053529
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Now in this case where the evidence is less ambiguous, suddenly it’s not the cop’s fault because he shouldn’t have been enforcing that law in the first place.

    Because saying I can see manslaughter charges ( although I have my doubts ) for the cop means I’m deflecting?

    My point is, even if the law was something we both considered legitimate, the cop’s reaction would have been excessive.

    Perhaps we’re talking past each other, or we’re just never going to agree, but when you make more opportunities for police interaction there will be more interaction, and therefore more abuse.

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/04/eric-garners-murder-reveals-the-ugly-cor

    You want a society taxed and regulated toward your vision of perfection? It’s going to need enforcers. Those enforcers are going to interact on a daily basis with people who don’t share that vision of perfection, and who resent the constant enforcement attempts. They’ll push back to greater or lesser extents. And the enforcers will twist arms in return to frighten people into obedience. People will be abused and some will die.

    Some of the people defying the law will carve out a niche for themselves. My great-grandfather ignored Prohibition in his speakeasy. He kept cops who didn’t take the law too seriously happy with drinks and payoffs. And he kept everybody happy by defying yet another attempt by control freak officials and their busybody constituents to perfect the world through force.

    I didn’t turn as big a profit as my great-grandfather when I sold grass. But I knew enough to keep a police dispatcher happy. He returned the favor by tipping me off when I popped onto law enforcement radar.

    Corruption, then, becomes a lubricant to the system. Paying cops off to “please just leave me alone,” is a better alternative to watching armies of enforcers kill people in the streets over stupid laws.

    Those enforcers aren’t an equal problem for everybody. They spare the people who pay them to look the other way. They give a pass to friends and relations. But they often take a dislike to individuals or whole groups that rub them the wrong way or cause them extra grief. Poor minorities, in particular, are aways on the short end of the stick when it comes to dealing with cops. When they break petty laws, they don’t often turn enough profit to grease police palms enough to be left alone, they don’t have the political power to push back, and at least some of the enforcers have a hard-on for them anyway.

    Government, at its core, is force. The more it does to shape the world around it, the more it needs enforcers to make sure officials’ wills are done. “The law is the law,” says New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, but it’s creatures like him who make so much damned law. And then they send the likes of Officer Daniel Pantaleo to make sure we comply. Or else they might kill us.

    #1053534

    kit444
    Participant

    Perhaps we’re talking past each other, or we’re just never going to agree, but when you make more opportunities for police interaction there will be more interaction, and therefore more abuse.

    We are talking past each other. I don’t disagree that less laws mean less opportunities for police abuse. That doesn’t mean that we have to accept police abuse for the laws we all agree are essential, nor does it mean we should repeal a law simply because it can lead to abuse because all laws can be abused.

    #1053535
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    I don’t disagree that less laws mean less opportunities for police abuse.

    That much we agree on, at least.

    #1053541

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>kit444 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rus wrote:</div><br>
    You’re ignoring the role of nanny state laws, though. Without those, there is no legal grounds at all for an arrest and a confrontation like this wouldn’t have happened in the first place.

    That’s a separate question and a deflection from the issue of whether the use of force was excessive and potentially manslaughter. If Garner had been apprehended for jaywalking, would you argue that the problem is jaywalking laws?

    The use of force wasn’t for the shitty law (or jaywalking in your instance), it was for resisting arrest. But they wouldn’t have been been making the arrest without the shitty law.

    Edit: I misread the page and thought you were responding to me.

    How can anyone watch those videos and think Garner was resisting arrest? It’s absolutely stunning that people can watch something so horrific and still regurgitate such awful excuses.

    #1053542

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>kit444 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ColumbusTime wrote:</div><br>
    The use of force wasn’t for the shitty law (or jaywalking in your instance), it was for resisting arrest. But they wouldn’t have been been making the arrest without the shitty law.

    So the issue still isn’t the shitty law but how the parties reacted to each other, right?

    There would be no reaction without the shitty law. No arrest to resist.

    There really aren’t big enough facepalms for this.

    #1053559

    Twixlen
    Participant

    So libertarians oppose taxes on cigarettes but feel there’s no need for any discussion of how and when police can escalate use of force to lethal levels?

    Y’all are weird.

    Cliven Bundy = Patriot

    Eric Garner = Law breaking thug who deserved to die.

    #1053938

    News
    Participant

    Hundreds March In Columbus To Protest Police
    December 9, 2014
    by The Associated Press

    Hundreds of people marched to Columbus Police headquarters last night to call for justice for victims of police brutality. About 400 people marched peacefully from the Ohio State University campus to a park and then to police headquarters.

    READ MORE: http://wosu.org/2012/news/2014/12/09/hundreds-march-columbus-protest-police/

    #1053940

    News
    Participant

    #1053982

    News
    Participant

    About 200 people rally on Ohio State’s campus to protest Ferguson decision, police brutality
    December 9, 2014
    Rubina Kapil

    A group gathered at the green space at 4:30 p.m. on Monday to rally in protest of the Ferguson decision and other instances of police brutality. Organizers estimated there were about 200 people in attendance.

    READ MORE: http://thelantern.com/2014/12/about-200-people-rally-on-ohio-states-campus-to-protest-ferguson-decision-police-brutality/

    #1054405
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    How can anyone watch those videos and think Garner was resisting arrest? It’s absolutely stunning that people can watch something so horrific and still regurgitate such awful excuses.

    When the police tried to put his arms behind his back in order to handcuff him, he yanked them away. That’s resisting arrest.

    #1054409
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    How can anyone watch those videos and think Garner was resisting arrest? It’s absolutely stunning that people can watch something so horrific and still regurgitate such awful excuses.

    When the police tried to put his arms behind his back in order to handcuff him, he yanked them away. That’s resisting arrest.

    And carte blanche to be choked to death.

    #1054736

    News
    Participant

    Ohio State University Students Call For Justice During Die-In On Campus
    OSU Die In

    By Staff Writer
    Sunday December 14, 2014 3:52 PM

    COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohio State University students came together on Saturday night to protest ongoing violence and alleged police brutality across the country. The students met at the Oval in front of the Thompson Statue for a die-in.

    READ MORE: http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2014/12/14/columbus-ohio–ohio-state-university-students-call-for-justice-during-die-in-on-campus.html

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 462 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: