Societal Decay

[halfback20]

 

Not when they didn't try to detain him initially. They only decided to detain him when he ran. They try to detain him and he ran. They decided that his running after "making eye contact" was a reason to detain him. By their own accounts he never resisted and was not charged with resisting or evading. How much clearer can that be?

 

Running from police unprovoked in a high crime area can be considered reasonable suspicion for police to stop someone and investigate.

 

So him running was a form of resisting. Again, we don't know what happened when they caught him...

[AverageJoesGym]

You are missing my point. He ran and at some point they caught him. Did he just stop and put his hands behind his back, or did they forcefully stop him? I don't know.

 

According to the police report he was arrested without incident or violence. So unless the police lied in their report he gave up willingly when caught. Given that we've seen people charged with resisting for menacing looks in the past couple of years I think it is pretty telling that he wad not charged with resisting or even evading.

[LIPTON BASH]

Not when they didn't try to detain him initially. They only decided to detain him when he ran. They try to detain him and he ran. They decided that his running after "making eye contact" was a reason to detain him. By their own accounts he never resisted and was not charged with resisting or evading. How much clearer can that be?

 

Again I think the Police look bad and as of now I think a few of them are looking at jail time.

 

But we don't know what he would be charged with because the cops didn't do their job in transport.

[AverageJoesGym]

Running from police unprovoked in a high crime area can be considered reasonable suspicion for police to stop someone and investigate.

 

So him running was a form of resisting. Again, we don't know what happened when they caught him...

 

No. It can't. It could be reason for detaining. However, if he was running BEFORE being detained it was not resisting. Did you miss the police report where it said he was arrested without incident and was only charged with the weapon charge?

[AverageJoesGym]

Again I think the Police look bad and as of now I think a few of them are looking at jail time.

 

But we don't know what he would be charged with because the cops didn't do their job in transport.

 

We know what he was arrested for--and it wasn't resisting, evading or any kind assault.

[halfback20]

 

According to the police report he was arrested without incident or violence. So unless the police lied in their report he gave up willingly when caught. Given that we've seen people charged with resisting for menacing looks in the past couple of years I think it is pretty telling that he wad not charged with resisting or even evading.

 

You assume too much. You don't know what happened when they caught him.

 

Arrested without incident might mean they tackled him and it ended...

[halfback20]

 

No. It can't. It could be reason for detaining. However, if he was running BEFORE being detained it was not resisting. Did you miss the police report where it said he was arrested without incident and was only charged with the weapon charge?

 

You aren't getting it.

 

I'm not talking about them charging him with resisting. I'm talking about him running being a form of him resisting police contact. Him running gave them a reason to stop him, with force if necessary. Whether they tackled him or he just gave up, I don't know.

[AverageJoesGym]

You assume too much. You don't know what happened when they caught him.

 

Arrested without incident might mean they tackled him and it ended...

 

Okay, if you say so. We both know that if that would have happened he'd have been charged with resisting. Also didn't they say that a taser was drawn and not used? Must have been a really scary arrest. Defend all you want. The police themselves have an account off a routine arrest without violence. The person arrested had his neck snapped and is dead as a result of what happened in police custody. THOSE FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLE.

[halfback20]

;

Okay, if you say so. We both know that if that would have happened he'd have been charged with resisting. Also didn't they say that a taser was drawn and not used? Must have been a really scary arrest. Defend all you want. The police themselves have an account off a routine arrest without violence. The person arrested had his neck snapped and is dead as a result of what happened in police custody. THOSE FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLE.

 

Are you just making things up now? What exactly have I defended? I said I don't know what happened.

[JokersWild24]

1.) We don't know exactly what went down in Baltimore yet, right? Darren Wilson looked very guilty at one time. Turns out he did absolutely nothing wrong, but a lot of people lied and said he did.

 

2.) The second guy you mentioned was arrested. What else can police do beyond that? As far as I know, he had no prior history of anything indicating he'd do what he did.

 

 

You can go back and read what I posted during the Michael Brown thing and see that I was one of the people saying, "I don't know enough to know if Darren Wilson will or should be indicted" (post #1906), but I really don't know how you can look at the situation here and think things are rosy.

 

 

To 1, no, we don't know exactly what happened, but it's pretty clear that a man died in police custody and had some injuries that are usually indicative of foul play. It's a bit disingenuous to say "we don't know exactly what went down" because we probably never will know such if one wanted to really beg the definition of 'exactly what went down'. You can use common sense and connect the dots here and say that short of some kind of explanation that city leaders are sitting on or have yet to find while their city is in chaos, things don't look good.

 

Example: when Thabo Sefolosha goes into custody fine but leaves with a broken leg that is untreated, his livelihood (insofar as his occupation) has likely been seriously effected, and both the NBAPA (who usually stays out of arrests) and the NYPD (which doesn't have a sparkling record) immediately launch their own investigations-- that tells you something. Sure, maybe he broke his own leg and refused treatment as a way to conspire against the officers who arrested him. Maybe that and he has the NYPD and NBAPA fooled, but that's not really the most plausible explanation, nor has anything come out so far to contradict the obvious.

 

 

To 2, yes, he was arrested. However, I'm of the opinion that if it's the first time the guy has done something nefarious, then he's probably the unluckiest guy in the world considering it was something that bad which also got caught on camera. I'm of opinion that things like that don't just happen overnight. I'd think it's fair to say that there were likely things which foretold his not being a good officer. While those most likely weren't as serious as what went down, I'd be willing to bet that there were at least some warning signs. I say that because I didn't see much hesitation and nothing came out contrary to his report until the video was sent to the media. His actions just don't seem like the type of things someone just wakes up one day and starts doing. Same for the campus PD with a controversial arrest and a Department not rushing to release his disciplinary record on requests. It was most likely because he had a laundry list of complaints, write-ups, and the like.

 

Obviously, both of the above are generalizations and there may be perfectly logical explanations otherwise, but for now, I think it's fair to say that things don't look good, either the situation in Baltimore being explained otherwise or the South Carolina officer having a sparkling record.

 

 

 

My point in the post that was quoted was only to provoke thought and make the analogy that, just like looting doesn't do anything positive for ending inequalities, police brutality won't stop suspects from running or stealing nor will it help gain the public's trust.

 

As things stand, society looks pretty fractured when it comes to public/police relations, and I don't see things getting better until each side shows some give and take.

 

None of this is meant to be argumentative because I really respect your opinion and always like debating with you, and yes, sometimes where there's smoke-- there's only smoke (and no fire), but given how high profile these things were and the state of affairs that followed, you'd think that anything that could otherwise explain things would have been thrown out by now to keep things from deteriorating even further.

 

In Baltimore, I think that there's been a strong undercurrent for some time, and that's why this has become a rallying cry for people so out for blood. They don't need a full investigation into this because they've seen the same song and dance many, many times and there are loads of civil suits to prove it. Even if it turns out that there's a logical explanation that completely exonerates the police, this is still something people will be fighting because things reached a tipping point well before this and the recent events were the match that lit a powder keg.

[woodsrider]

Okay, if you say so. We both know that if that would have happened he'd have been charged with resisting. Also didn't they say that a taser was drawn and not used? Must have been a really scary arrest. Defend all you want. The police themselves have an account off a routine arrest without violence. The person arrested had his neck snapped and is dead as a result of what happened in police custody. THOSE FACTS ARE INDISPUTABLE.

I don't see him defending anything. Because he isn't going to play the assume game and chooses to wait for more info means nothing more then that.

[halfback20]

I don't see him defending anything. Because he isn't going to play the assume game and chooses to wait for more info means nothing more then that.

 

Correct.

[JokersWild24]

Running from police unprovoked in a high crime area can be considered reasonable suspicion for police to stop someone and investigate.

 

So him running was a form of resisting. Again, we don't know what happened when they caught him...

 

Yep, Illinois v. Wardlow.