http://controversialtimes.com/news/break...ision-expected/

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon just signed an executive order which declares a state of emergency in Missouri ahead of the grand jury decision in Ferguson. The decision is expected to be announced today, perhaps after all school children have made it safely home.

Here is part of the executive order which declares a formal state of emergency in Missouri and activates the National Guard (referred to as ‘organized militia’):

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Missouri, including Sections 44.010 through 44.130, RSMo, do hereby declare a State of Emergency exists in the State of Missouri.

I further direct the Missouri State Highway Patrol together with the St. Louis County Police Department and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to operate as a Unified Command to protect civil rights and ensure public safety in the City of Ferguson and the St. Louis region.

I further order that the St. Louis County Police Department shall have command and operational control over security in the City of Ferguson relating to areas of protests, acts of civil disobedience and conduct otherwise arising from such activities.

I further order that the Unified Command may exercise operational authority in such other jurisdictions it deems necessary to protect civil rights and ensure public safety and that other law enforcement agencies shall assist the Unified Command when so requested and shall cooperate with operational directives of the Unified Command.

I further order, pursuant to Section 41.480, RSMo, the Adjutant General of the State of Missouri, or his designee, to forthwith call and order into active service such portions of the organized militia as he deems necessary to protect life and property and assist civilian authorities and it is further directed that the Adjutant General or his designee, and through him, the commanding officer of any unit or other organization of such organized militia so called into active service take such action and employ such equipment as may be necessary to carry out requests processed through the Missouri State Highway Patrol and ordered by the Governor of the state to protect life and property and support civilian authorities.

This Order shall expire in thirty days unless extended in whole or in part by subsequent Executive Order.

Organized protests occurred earlier in the day today and protestors are already meeting at prearranged protest points.

The temperature in Ferguson is expected to be very cold tonight and may help to limit the number of people participating in protests.

#PantUPDon'tLOOT

The PoPo need to post "Job Fair" signs all over the troubled areas...that should keep them away.

And Red Hook, if he's in the area.

They also plan to target Boeing, Anheuser Busch and several other places:


"The No Indictment.org Ferguson protest group released its list of potential targets following the decision by the St. Louis County Courthouse on the Mike Brown case.

The published map shows expected landmarks like the Ferguson City Hall and the County Courthouse.

But it also marks things that have NOTHING to do with the Michael Brown situation, like Anheuser Busch and Boeing.


Most telling thing is the mark for Emerson Electric. Emerson has been in Ferguson for at least 50 years. Yet not only do they mark Emerson they make note of the CEO’s salary.

Below is the published list of potential St. Louis area targets.
Potential Action Locations

•Robert McCulloch’s office
•St. Louis County Justice Center
•Stephanie Karr’s office
•Olin Corporation Headquarters
•Judge Maura McShane’s courtroom
•St. Louis County Police Department
•Governor Nixon’s Office (Wainwright Building)
•Clayton School District Office
•Department of Justice
•Dean Plocher’s office
•Ronald Brockmeyer’s office
•Dan Boyle’s office
•Thomas Flach’s office
•Regal III Market
•Canfield Green Apartments
•Ferguson Police Department & Jail
•West Florissant Quick Trip
•Missouri Botanical Gradens
•Powell Symphony Hall
•Monsanto Headquarters
•Peabody Energy Headquarters
•Anheuser-Busch Headquarters
•Emerson Electric Headquarters
•Steve Stenger’s lawfirm
•St. Louis Art Museum
•Gateway Arch
•Peabody Opera House
•Ritz Carlton
•Lambert International Airport
•Mayor Slay
•Boeing
•St. Louis City Police Department
•St. Louis Galleria
•Plaza Frontenac
•Six Stars Market
•Colonel Jon Belmar
•Senator Roy Blunt
•Senator Claire McCaskill
•St. Louis City Justice Center
•St. Ann Police Department & Jail
•Clayton City Hall
•GCI Security, Inc.
•St. Louis County Council
•Clayton Police Department & Jail
•Ferguson City Hall
•Lacy Clay’s Office
•Donors
•Husch Blackwell LLP
•Martin Insurance Group LLC
•Stone, Leyton & Gershman
•University Square Company
•Stone & Alter Real Estate
•Carey & Danis LLC
•The Law Firm of Thomas C Antoniou LLC
•Hammond & Shinners Law Firm
•Collinsville Acquisitions Inc
•Thompson Coburn
•Commercial Bank
•Sanctuaries
•Greater St. Mark Family Church
•Veterans for Peace Office
•St. John’s Episcopal Church
•Hospitals
•St. Louis University Hospital
•SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center
•SSM St. Mary’s Health Center
•Barnes Jewish Hospital
•St. Alexius Hospital
•Kindred Hospital
•Southwest Medical Center

"The Ferguson Mike Brown protesters are not ruling out violence or looting."

It could get ugly.

They need to announce the decision on a nasty snow/ice storm.

Well that should keep the anarchists out of Seattle for a month or so. I'd say a week or so if they didn't have to hitchhike their way there and back.

But rest assure they will be back seeing Seattle is going to provide their "homeless" camp with wifi so they can organize future law breaking activities.

I'm surprised they don't already have wifi to go with their Obola phones.

Ignorance pure ignorance.

Really, how might you perceive that?

Not you guys for once. I'm referring to the masses preparing to loot and resort to violence

Ferguson gun sales

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/ferguson-gun-sales_n_6179254.html

Don't confuse those outside agitators with the vast majority of the citizens of Ferguson. When all things are said and done, the citizens will still be living there and they don't need any more animosity. [/quote

I think I was rather specific in the group I named. No where did I say anything about the residents of Ferguson.

I am impassioned by Obama's speach.... well said sir!!!

What the fu (k were they thinking burning down the beauty supply store... Ive watched the news and seen some of the women of Ferguson, they need all the help they can get

Megan kelly is a babe

Not zesty

We gonna be burning and a-looting tonight

One officer shot so far. No report on his condition. Hope the loss of life and property is minimal. N

Getting quite sporty out there....

St Louis Co Scanner

MO State Highway Patrol Scanner

the hipsters are out in force.
http://www.ustream.tv/z

It was interesting on MSNBC this morning watching them doing their best to blame the violence on the timing of the announcement instead of placing the blame on the people doing the looting.

I found the release timing complaints to be quite interesting. If the verdict was released during working hours it certainly would have been a more target rich environment for the thugs. I wonder if that is what they, the complainers, wanted.

I'm sure all the looters are tax paying citizens and will happily welcome tax hikes or whatever will be done to counter the damages done.

i thought at was interesting Msnbc blamed the time of the announcement and this morning fox blamed teachers and schools

I'm selling t shirts that say "Doors lock, Don't loot"

Winner Winner chicken dinner..

this was as expected. the 'civil rights leaders' of jessie jackson and Al Sharpton Are still race baiting for a free buck which is also expected.

Most of the "protesters" aren't from Ferguson.

Saw a lady on MSNBC this morning explaining how the police need to get training on how to communicate with black youth to prevent incidents like Ferguson from happening. YGTBKM!

Love that Chris Rock video. "Obey the law." Assaulting a police officer ain't a good way to advance one's civil rights. Seems like Mr. Brown had a death wish.

yea the CR vid should be a required watch for blacks. since we never hear of any other people being this stupid, no need for any other minority to watch.

as long as the blacks have been in this country you would think they would have some obvious smarts. don't fphuck with a cop!

I like it.

Wow. Some words of wisdom from a young man. A very good read.

Too bad many will not listen to him. I've been telling people the same thing. It's easier for people to take an us vs them view because mob mentality has no prerequisite of intelligence.

For the most part, people listen.

Not unless it hits the evening news or becomes a front page story. Reverend Al only has time for the stories with legs. Need headlines you know. Any time you can put up the words "child" or "teen" in the headline that will be a good one. Stories about women if they were raped......but only if the rapist is white. Black rapists don't count. Amazing what a POS that guy is and that people still listen to him. Him and Jessie are peas in a pod.

One thing for certain....this country will never be post-racial until those two are burning in hell where they belong.

I had a problem with this one, cops showed way too much force but it wasn't at all a race issue. Cops are fuking crazy, why would you tempt them?

At the end of the day the unfortunate truth is that people will start exercising their 2nd Amendment rights by carrying all the time...to protect themselves from cops, and good cops will get shot.

Why let the "authorities" handle it when they obviously aren't going to?

If someone that is important to me is harrassed or injured by anyone I will deal with them as the piece'o'[Bleeeeep!] they are, and what uniform they may or may not be wearing is 100% irrelevant to that...as a matter of fact, if an "authority figure" is the one doing the harrassing or injuring they are a bigger piece'o'[Bleeeeep!] than the regular pieces'o'[Bleeeeep!] that would do it, and will be treated as such.

Fish on...

Todd

I find it pretty funny...and not in an amusing funny, but in a "I'm surprised you survived past childhood because you are so fuckin stupid" funny kind of way...that the very same right wing fruitcakes who need to strap on a piece to go take a crap in case the toilet tries to attack them, the very same idiots who think the government is going to come and...

1. Take their guns
2. Take their money
3. Take their lifted truck, and
4. Steal Christmas

...are the first ones to jump on the pro-gubmint bandwagon when an unarmed black kid is shot by the cops.

The reason should be obvious...it's because it has nothing to do with cops, or guns, or even Christmas.

Fish on...

Todd

Typical analysis from Hank.

Fish on...

Todd

Is it that you haven't noticed the right wing fruitcakes doing that (are you fuckin blind?), or that you don't care?

Fish on...

Todd

No. I say the very same right wing fruitcakes who are afraid to take a crap without their gun loaded and pointed at the shitter in case ISIS comes thru it to behead them are in full support of an armed government agent...a cop...shooting an unarmed black kid.

The very same "gubmint agents" who they are afraid of.

I know it's hard to keep track of who the right wing fruitcakes are afraid of this week, but that's a pretty steady fearsome figure for them, the armed gubmint agent coming to take something away from them.

Fish on...

Todd

And you, as always, completely avoid what I was asking about and spew horseshit.

Fish on...

Todd

That's because you're a fucktard.

No.

You being a fucktard has to do with the lack of effort you put forth in school and the poor genetic material you got from your fucktarded parents.

If the fat SOB cigg seller was white, retodd wouldn't have posted a damn thing about it. It's called white guilt. Fact.

Go ducks!

fuk the Trees.

Awwww.

Who's sandy now, fuckhead?

I had a frozen burrito for lunch today. It wasn't half bad.

Bad act by the NYPD. Nonetheless, no matter how innocent you are, when the cop says you're under arrest, how f'n smart is it to resist arrest? Not excusing the cops. Just not excusing the alleged cig. seller either.

The dumb SOB was arrested 31 times.

Then you launch a rectum rocket.

You have to breathe to talk.

I'd much rather see these efforts and call of solidarity focused on stopping black on black crime opposed to furthering the us vs them mentality.

It shouldn't matter but it does. The racial make up of the police force should match the racial make up of the community. There would be a lot less tension if the cop was black in this Ferguson situation.

A quota system for police? Do you support lowering the already low bar for police recruits?

[

If someone that is important to me is harrassed or injured by anyone I will deal with them as the piece'o'[Bleeeeep!] they are,

Fish on...

Todd [/quote]

At the right time that could be considered racist.

Affirmative action is another crutch. Work your ass off, stay out of trouble, and set yourself apart by your merits not race.

Tensions would be a lot less if the "black leaders" would be leaders and not shepherds of the ignorance.

This shiet annoys me. All this call for race. I had one lady mention slavery to me the other week when referencing Ferguson.

I'm several generations removed from the plantation. A lot of these people demanding reparations and claiming a lot of racism, have not once been exposed to true racsim.

Their ignorance and lack of drive to obtain knowledge or even overcome excuses kills me and the prosperity of the race.

They have every excuse in the world to stay down and be "oppressed" and "targeted".

It's tough to overcome and there will be challenges, but the mark of a man is in his achievements not his excuses.

The democratic parties success depends on the poor vote and the rich money. Everything they do is to maintain this balance. If any POTUS in American history was going to pour resources into poor black neighborhoods it would be this one but instead he's poured that money into Wall Street. Add in the poor immigrants that will out compete poor blacks for sh!tty jobs that enrich Wall Street even more and we've got exactly what we voted for.

But hey the markets up 20%. Yay!

Keta has a point despite the fact you can't force blacks to be cops they need to want to be cops.

When the Irish were being persecuted by cops they took the job over themselves. So it can be done.

Same thing was said about a Black president

add in the fact that they need a clean criminal record to be a cop... and you've just reduced your pool of qualified resources even more.

Hey, we just need to lower the requirements, then we can get enough minority candidates.


http://www.examiner.com/article/police-a...nority-recruits

The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits. It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam. Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees.
A Beltway watchdog group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption released a report Wednesday regarding its uncovering of hundreds of documents from the city of Dayton, Ohio, revealing that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Department of Justice pressured the local police department to lower testing standards because not enough African-American candidates passed the written exam.

On May 25, Judicial Watch had filed a lawsuit against the DOJ to obtain additional records related to the Dayton program after the DOJ failed to respond to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch include Dayton's standards and test materials for police and firefighter candidates produced by Fire & Police Selection, Inc., a company with a 15-year track record of designing and validating tests used to recruit police officers and firefighters.

The documents also include correspondence between the Dayton city officials and the DOJ officials with regard to their analysis of the Dayton recruitment and testing program. (A "Consent Decree" signed by both parties to resolve a discrimination lawsuit filed by the DOJ against the city of Dayton.)

Dayton's government submitted ahead of time its recruitment and testing plans in detail (including its written examination), per the request of the DOJ. Dayton also took steps to focus its recruitment strategy on "minority -- African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, females and other underrepresented minority groups." These plans apparently did not elicit any significant objection from the DOJ until after the tests had been administered and scores were calculated.

"What should anger anyone who cares about fairness and justice -- especially law enforcement officers -- should be outraged by this case. There is no fairness nor is there any justice whenever there's corrupt government practices," said former police union official Fred Peirson.

According to an internal assessment by Fire & Police Selection, Inc., "An exhaustive item-level analysis was conducted on the data from the administration and our statisticians did not identify any significantly problematic items that negatively affected the reliability of the test."

According to an internal assessment by Fire & Police Selection, Inc., "An exhaustive item-level analysis was conducted on the data from the administration and our statisticians did not identify any significantly problematic items that negatively affected the reliability of the test."


Must then be the reliability of the applicants.

You need to be able to read and understand the laws you are enforcing and then be able to write an understandable report on arrests.

Well then. If blacks are too stupid to be cops what jobs are blacks actually capable of doing ?

I'd advise you either rephrase or reconsider what you just posted.

You've been advised! lol

Yep just got real up in here.

I just paraphrased what you and others implied and asked a question.

Stupidity and under educated are two really different things.

I think it is Obama and Holder who are saying that Blacks are not smart enough to pass the test. The rest of us assume that those who can pass the test do not want the job.

The school district my children attend rewards black students for getting a "B" average. I kind of want to show up at a school board meeting and talk about all the great reasons the program is needed. You know, because they are lazy, stupid, unmotivated, etc. Of course, when they get all upset, then I would ask them what the real reason was. Because I just assumed they must feel that way or they would offer it all struggling students.

At the right time that could be considered racist.[/quote]

Are you trying to give Sol Dunce a run at being biggest fuckin dumfuk on the board?

That's a good start, if you are.

Hank, read fuckin English you dumshit.

Fish on...

Todd

I'll make it so easy that I bet even Sol Dunce can understand it...but like you he will ignore answering it, most likely.

Do you think it is odd that the very same people* who are afraid of government tyranny are always the first ones to come out in support of government agents when they shoot or choke to death unarmed black men?

My thoughts on this is that their innate fear of black people is higher than their innate fear of the gubmint...so the gubmint gets the nod in these cases.

Now when it's the gubmint going after, oh, I dunno...stupid right wing racist ranchers who don't pay their taxes and steal from every single American when doing so...and don't even kill 'em, just try to get them to get their fuckin cattle off of OUR land...well, they don't fear those kinds of stupid idiots, because they are those kinds of stupid idiots...so the gubmint tyranny loses in that case.

Fish on...

Todd

* and when I say "people" I mean deranged right wing jerkoffs who are afraid of everything, because everyone and everything is out to get them and take everything they love.

The obvious conclusion to that, of course, is that they are the worst kind of [Bleeeeep!] cowardly hypocrites.

They're the same kind of pussies that are so tough that they threaten to call the cops as soon as you tell them to shut their fuckin pieholes before you knock their teeth in...the same kind of pussies that "hate lawyers" but will sue anyone, for anything, at any time.

They love Gubmint Tyranny...so long as it ain't aimed at "real 'Mericans"...

Fish on...

Todd

Why is it that every post you make my name comes out? Either you have a crush on me or I'm living rent free in that melon of yours.

P.S Just curious.

Bottom line is: Todd hates country music

Took him 3 fukin pages to say so

Ok, So you are saying blacks are too ignorant to be cops.

IGNORANT

[ig-ner-uh nt] Spell Syllables

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin




adjective


1.

lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned:
"an ignorant man."


2.

lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:
"ignorant of quantum physics."


3.

uninformed; unaware.


4.

due to or showing lack of knowledge or training:
"an ignorant statement."


If you mean that not taking advantage of the education that is yours if you put in the effort is ignorant, than yes. some blacks, some whites.

I had no comment on Ferguson because the Grand Jury had access to much more evidence than I. The NYC case is different and how anyone can defend the cop's action needs serious help. The video tells all.

You forgot lifted trucks.....

The video is certainly ugly, but to say that it tells all is simplistic at best.

Did you realize that the man died of a heart attack? Did you realize that it was a minority shop owner that called the police because Mr.Garner was illegally selling black market cigarettes in front of his store? Did you know that the first officer on the scene called for reinforcements after he assessed the situation? Did you know that it was a black female sergeant who was in charge and on the scene and directed the arrest? Do you know the statutes that the grand jury were charged with enforcing and were also limited by?

It seems to me that if you are going to be critical of anything it would be the obscene taxes imposed on cigarettes, that are made necessary by a much to powerful and intrusive government.

You would be well advised to establish and consider the facts before coming to a conclusion, and to consider that you might be the one that 'needs serious help'.

A few points of clarification that might help some put these types of "use of force" issues in context.

"Unarmed" is as irrelevant as the color of someone's skin when it comes to judging whether force applied is reasonable or unreasonable. Unarmed people can pose a legitimate threat of serious injury or death to officers and the public at large. Likewise, it is possible for armed people to pose no threat whatsoever.

The standard of "reasonable" that is applied by the courts is defined in a few landmark cases, the most important of those being Graham vs. Connor. In Graham vs. Connor the court went to great length to define what is reasonable with regard to applications of force required to affect and arrest or mitigate a threat.

The key elements that came out of this case say that some level of force "may" be reasonable when weighed against these factors:

1. The seriousness of the crime
2. Whether the subject posed an immediate threat to officers or others.
3. Whether the subject was resisting arrest
4. Whether the subject was fleeing to avoid arrest.

The line between reasonable and unreasonable will be drawn by the judge or jury based on the facts of the case.

Fact finding and determination is the goal of these grand jury proceedings. The grand jury hears testimony and evaluates evidence to determine if there is "probable cause" that a crime was committed. Probable cause is a standard that has a strict definition and the standard is either met, or it is not, there is no gray area.

Looking at severity of the crime in both the Ferguson case and the Eric Garner case. At first both were fairly benign. One was jaywalking and the other was selling cigarettes. As events unfolded and more information was gathered the severity of the crime changed. In the case of Ferguson the new and more serious crimes were assault, robbery, and assaulting a police officer. In NYC the new crime was resisting arrest.

Defining the crime is important because it is not fair to say cops killed someone for selling cigarettes or for walking down the middle of the road. As an isolated event with compliant subject neither of those "crimes" would have resulted in any use of force let alone deadly force. The crimes later committed in those contacts were much more serious and the courts have obviously stated that some application of force will be reasonable to in response.

The Ferguson case has been well dissected and I won't dive back into that one. Instead lets take a quick look at the Garner NYC case as it seems like most here are taking the stance that they are OK with Ferguson but think Garner is different and the cops actions were unacceptable and intolerable.

I'll admit I haven't looked too deeply into the facts. I've seen a few articles here and there that piqued my interest and I just recently watched the video clip. Prior to watching the video, I had a pretty different mental picture of the events. The media snippets I saw had the usual drama inducing descriptors like "unarmed black man choked to death by white cop, etc."

Before I watched the video I expected to see a fairly prolonged and violent struggle, which I would think would have to be the case for an individual to be choked "to death," but that wasn't the case at all. The period of time that Garner was in a "choke hold" was fairly brief and has been pointed out, when you can't breathe, it is impossible to say "I can't breathe. As one who has been choked and who has applied these types of holds both in training and in personal pursuits of mixed martial arts I will say with absolute confidence that when your airway is obstructed/occluded to the point of not being able to breathe, speech is impossible.

Putting aside of whether he was choked to death or not for now, lets revisit the Graham factors to determine what level of force might be appropriate.

1. The severity of the crime. The crime for which force was applied was resisting arrest. Resisting falls into two categories, actively resisting and passively resisting.

Passive resistance is easy to define. The person resisting takes no physical action but rather is verbally uncooperative and won't comply with commands. Any physical action or threat thereof qualifies as an application of force and the only reasonable one for someone passively resisting is to grab their hands and put them in handcuffs.

Active resistance covers a range from simply physically non-complaint (pulling arms away, walking away) to more serious active resistance that could be considered combative or assault, which again ups the severity of the crime ante.

What I saw in the Garner video was active resistance. When passive resistance turn to active, the amount of force needed to affect an arrest will necessarily increase in response. What level is appropriate and reasonable will depend on the facts.

The size of the subject vs. the size of the officer or officers in question is another element of Graham vs. Connor but it is not one of the key elements. The duration of the struggle is another. Garner was a huge dude that was obviously physically imposing. The officers by comparison were relatively small. Common sense would say that it is probably going to take a few guys trying pretty hard to get a guy the size of Garner into handcuffs if he doesn't want them on, let alone if he decides to fight. Likewise the courts have also said that when these disparities exist a higher level of force can be reasonable as compared to when the playing fields are more level.

Once his passive resistance turned active after the officers initial attempt to get him in cuffs, he forced an escalation. As a general principle, more force applied earlier in struggle generally means less damage to all in the end. In other words, letting these struggles go on for long periods of time is generally bad news for everyone and getting the fight over quickly is in everyone's best interest.

Looking at the methods used by the officers, grabbing someone who is actively resisting or fighting around the neck in order to subdue them is a commonly used takedown in law enforcement. It sounds like that technique may not be supported by NYPD policy, but the questions at hand here are those of law and not policy and so the agency policy isn't relevant.

The law says is that the implement of force applied and the resulting injuries suffered are of no consequence as long as the level of force is reasonable. Should a choke hold be considered deadly force? Again looking at the law, deadly force is defined as force that is likely to cause serious injury or death. I would submit that when a choke hold is applied for a relatively short period of time it does not and should not fit the definition of deadly force. I don't believe any facts of this case would show deadly force to be reasonable and I don't believe deadly force was applied.

So to the question at hand, was this method of subduing the subject reasonable? Based on the facts of the case I would say that it is. When the outcome is considered, Garner dying, it can certainly seem otherwise but these things are judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer, on scene working with the facts that they had at the time.

I don't think any reasonable officer would conclude that the duration of the hold around Garners neck was likely to cause serious injury or death. This is further supported by the autopsy which pointed to the causes of death being related to heart disease, and an asthmatic condition and there was no trauma to the subject that would suggest airway damage or dysfunctionality.

Obviously these things were exacerbated by the struggle but no reasonable officer could have known of those conditions. The force applied in this case would not have caused the same outcome in most other individuals of a similar size and shape let alone someone who was fit and healthy. Though the struggle was a catalyst, Garner wasn't choked to death as the headlines would have you believe.

Please don't read this analysis as me defending the cops or saying that there wasn't a better way to handle this contact. I am merely trying to illuminate some aspects of the process and the manner in which these events are judged for a more complete understanding. Few realize the level of scrutiny that officers are held to and how well established some of these legal standards are. Because we can't see behind closed doors and/or don't take the time to research it is easy to cry foul and point to conspiracy.

I spend a lot of time reading through case law and court opinions and I have a fair amount of faith in the system and it's ability to be fair and consistent. It takes a lot for me to say that as generally I don't trust government.

Are there abuses of power that take place. Absolutely and I've been a victim of those as many have and it sucks. As a society we can't paint all enforcers of the law with a broad bush of badness based on events that are relatively rare by comparison.

That type of chokehold...the NYPD is forbidden by regulation to use it.

And it lead to the death of an unarmed man.

Add to it that as the man lay there dying that no one did anything to save his life...they just left him lying there.

And the cop didn't get indicted.

Fish on...

Todd

The Grand Jury doesn't consider agency policy when making their probable cause determination. The fact that NYPD's company rules forbid that technique has no bearing on what the courts consider reasonable vs. unreasonable.

Again unarmed isn't necessarily relevant either, the questions to ask are outlined in Graham vs. Connor. I spoke to severity of the crime. He was actively resisting. As such law says that some level of force is reasonable. The question then becomes was the level of force used reasonable.

No facts of the case would seem to support deadly force, and as defined deadly force wasn't applied.

I agree wholeheartedly that those on scene were negligent in not rendering medical assistance immediately, but the video I saw doesn't give enough detail as to the state of Garner while he was on the ground and whether he seemed to be in crisis or not. From a first responder standpoint, there isn't much that can be done for someone suffering an asthma and/or heart attack anyhow. CPR is only administered to those not capable of breathing on their own who lack a heartbeat, neither of which applied in this case. He was breathing and had a beating heart even after he was on the ambulance. At most he could have been given oxygen and a dose from an inhaler if those things were available. Neither of which would be likely to resolve cardiac arrest.

The video and the whole situation evoke an emotional response and it doesn't feel good. These events have to be broken down into facts and be weighed against laws and standards. That is the only way the system will continue to work.

None of the facts in this case, bad as it may feel, support the point of view that the officer(s) acted unreasonably or committed a crime which is the conclusion the jury came to as well.

What about the other officer with his knee on Garner's neck after the choke hold was released? Why isn't he being criticized?

I agree as well and that is a culture and big picture issue that definitely needs highlighting.

The officers in this case though were performing their jobs as instructed.

Well said Coley. Now condense all that down to a piffy bumper sticker and it will gain traction with citizens, media and politicians.

Till then we are stuck with, "I can't breath" and "Hands up, don't shoot."

It's.. "I cant breave"

Laws aren't being contrived. The laws, case laws specifically, that speak to the reasonable standard are well established. It is rare that any new cases come about that affect the courts interpretation of reasonable as the standards have been heavily analyzed. The exercise now is how to apply these standards to the facts of new cases.

What you should have said, Hank, is that agencies need to more closely scrutinize what is an arrestable offense. This is a matter of policy again, not law.

Generally what is an arrestable offense should take into consideration the governments (state, fed, or local) interest in apprehending the person and stopping whatever it is they were doing and the benefit to the public in doing so.

Selling single cigarettes doesn't seem to be a very compelling reason to take someone into custody. This call was made by the dept and the officers on scene cannot be faulted for that.

A good example of new circumstances directing how existing standards are applied is the use of tazers by law enforcement. Being a fairly new tool, the courts are still ironing out how to apply existing standards to the use of that tool. There have been some inconsistencies from district to district so far, much more so that in more well established force application tools. Time will iron those things out though. Hesterberg vs. the US is a good recent example and probably the most comprehensive discussion on the topic thus far.

Here is my vote for the bumper sticker.

My policy, should I ever feel I am being wrongly arrested, will be to state my argument, comply, and then seek retribution via legal channels after the fact.

Coley,

You won't do the classic ow ow ow I'm not resisting ?

If I am getting my ass beat without cause, I will certainly vocalize my feedback.

Hank,

Popo are given lots of discretion on whether a person is arrested. More discretion is used when determining if that person is going to be issued a court date or booked.

There are mandatory arrest and bookable offense and then there are many that aren't

A
T
F

The call was initiated by a business owner complaining about Garner selling untaxed loosies in front of his store. The business felt cheated by someone not paying the taxes that he has to with a legal business.

More or less. Selling single cigarettes violates one or more laws. Each law enforcement agency determines which violations of the law they will arrest for and which they will not.

A law enforcement agency's authority will be spelled out in the legislation, typically referred to as enabling legislation, that grants that authority. This language usually reads something along the lines of "officers have the authority to make arrests, serve warrants, and carry firearms to enforce XXX laws." In other words it's fairly general.

The agency, sometimes under other political influences, then determines how they will handle violations (citation, vs, arrest, vs. charging documents) etc.

From the anecdotal information out there, it would appear the agency in question had dictated that their officers were to arrest for the above named offense rather than cite or pursue correction via other means.

Thank you for your input.

Coley,

I'm curious about whether the chokehold fits the definition of reasonable force. I think the reason NYPD invoked a policy prohibiting it is because too often it resulted in death, when simply subduing a perp for arrest was the desired result. If there isn't one yet, I think it's possible there could be a finding that the chokehold is not reasonable force due to unintended fatalities from its use.

I've read both at this point that Garner's death was due to the chokehold (direct cause of death) and that he had cardiac arrest, that was either due to or exacerbated by stress from the chokehold (making it the indirect cause of death). I'm splitting this hair because if the chokehold is seen as indirect, the analogy could follow, for example, that it "wasn't the gunshot that caused the victim's death; it was the destruction of tissue and loss of blood that caused the death."

It appears that death by police chokehold isn't rare, although it is uncommon. I think a case might be made that a chokehold should not be used if lethal force isn't being considered. And if lethal force is being considered, then shooting the perp is much more efficient.

Oh, and the officer's knee on Garger's neck doesn't look very professional for a takedown considering the seriousness of the crime. But that officer and 3 others were somehow granted immunity, according to what I read.

All in all I'm still puzzled at the lack of indictment. Probable cause of a crime in GJ proceedings is a pretty low legal bar. There is testimony with no cross examination. Only the PA questions witnesses. The outcome is as much up to the PA as it is to the GJ.

Sg

Salmo,

In WA we do in quests which I hear are similar to the gj. The main purpose is to judge whether the use of force was legal and reasonable.

As for the "choke hold", in the video I saw it wasn't a choke. It almost resembled an attempted far hand cross face take down. It came out with his arm across the neck because of the height disparity.

Knee across the neck on a suspect is actually a taught cuff ing position. What should've happened is the main officer should've grabbed an arm instead of fishing for hands. And one of the other officers should've grabbed the other arm into a straight wrist twist to gain compliance and get Gardner to a cuffing position.

I wasn't there but there looked to be a lot of hesitation by the back up officers until one took action.

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback stuff like this. I wasn't there nor do I n ow the details of what happened. Just what I saw

There was an excellent article by a black, ex prosecutor, now at GTU. He chose law to change it, sorta like I suggested above, but found that in reality he was so dependent on cops to do his job that it corrupted him. He opines that all cop shootings should go to a different jurisdiction as it is in the best interest of the prosecutor to lead the Grand Jury to never press charges against the cops. So maybe that would be a good start.

I believe it was a NYT article.

In WA a different jurisdiction handles it.

Whether or not it is reasonable depends on the facts of the case weighed against the four primary Graham factors described above as well as the "totality of the circumstances." In other words what is reasonable depends. The force used is weighed against the threat that it is used to counter.

Few would probably argue that choking a guy with a gun who is shooting up a school full of kids is unreasonable right? Stop him by any means necessary. Likewise choking a 90 year old person in a wheel chair who is passively resisting and poses no threat would never be deemed reasonable. Same use of force but applied in very different circumstances.

The question is was this level or manner of force reasonable in the context which it was applied.

Again getting back to the legal definition of deadly force, deadly force is that which is LIKELY to cause serious injury, or death. Serious injury or death is POSSIBLE even in very benign circumstances, which is why these words have been chosen carefully.

I have never heard of a case of intentional or unintentional choking deaths secondary to a law enforcement action. I doubt seriously that NYPD's policy had anything to do with a long string of deaths or serious injuries. Not saying they haven't happened, but rather that it is certainly not a common thing.

My perspective and opinion is that choking someone in this manner for the period of time shown is not likely to cause serious injury or death. As an EMT and person who has experienced both sides of such fights I feel relatively qualified to make that assessment and certainly invite informed opinions to the contrary.

Choking kills you by preventing the passage of oxygen from your blood to vital organs, namely the brain which obviously controls the heart. We all die of heart attacks. With continuous disruption of O2 and blood flow to the brain it typically takes several minutes, three or more for brain tissue to be compromised to the point that death or serious (lasting) injury is likely.

Another way that choking can kill you is if your airway and blood vessels in the neck suffer trauma to the point of not being able to do their jobs of getting air into your blood and blood into your brain. This requires a fairly massive amount of trauma as the body is pretty resilient. It takes a greater period of time for the needed O2 deprivation to occur as the system is still functioning, just not adequately.

None of these factors were present in the video or in the autopsy and analysis after the fact.

In trying to be objective, my opinion is that the whole event was more than this fellow's poor health could handle and the struggle as a whole did him in. That may seem a gross over simplification, but that is my opinion which has been formed with few real facts.

One could argue that given this fellow's physical condition it was likely that choking HIM for any period of time was likely to cause his death, but again no reasonable officer could have known of his preexisting conditions. In fact all physical/observable indicators would point to the opposite, that this very large human could probably endure some serious fighting before he would yield.

Thanks Coley

I
I
I
I
V

This latest shooting isn't gonna help matters... just wait till the riots when they indict the black cop and acquit whitey...


New Jersey police shooting

BRIDGETON, N.J. (AP) — With the dashboard camera in their cruiser rolling, police pulled a Jaguar over for running a stop sign on a dark New Jersey night. But things suddenly turned tense when one of the officers warned his partner that he could see a gun in the glove compartment.

Screaming over and over "Don't you f---ing move!" and "Show me your hands!" at the man in the passenger seat, the officer reached into the car and appeared to remove a silver handgun.

Then, despite being warned repeatedly not to move, the passenger stepped out of the Jaguar, his hands raised about shoulder level.

The officers opened fire, killing him.

A gun is found and he gets out of the car walking towards the Officer.. dumb move.

I'm thinking it may be a good Idea to institute some written and roll playing tests on police interaction in order to get a drivers license, ID card or a welfare check...

Most departments do reality based training. These guys probably have done hundreds of stops and welfare checks. When a person exits a vehicle during a traffic stop, one is on high alert. Coupled with an involved firearm and a guy with a felonious record it wasn't going to end well.

He meant individuals should be taught how to deal with police officers, not the other way around.

He said get not give driver's license. The proper way to interact is to listen. Especially at gun point.

I may be misunderstanding... but i was hinting at requiring the general public to go thru testing on how to act if pulled over in order to get a license, ID, or welfare.

Maybe the passenger was deaf? Listening to rap and hip hop sh!t can do that to a person.

Ok my bad.

...In that case, he deserved what he got

kinda a Darwin award winner. it's a good.

I am working in the St Louis area this week and I felt compelled to drive through Ferguson today, It's sad all around, saw one of the burned down businesses and saw many others closed up and 'for lease' signs. The interactions with everybody around this part of the country are very friendly so there is hope for race relations in Ferguson. btw, Busch stadium is pretty damn cool looking, looks like a giant Minor League park.