home

Wednesday Night Open Thread

I've been trying to set up a new computer and router for hours. I probably won't get done until very late. Our last open thread is overflowing, here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< Iraq: Woman Detained in Lebanon is Not Al Baghdadi's Wife | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Just for info (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:37:49 PM EST
    here are some stats from NYC.

    The "Gunfire In NYC, 2011, By Race" graph is pretty interesting, and I'm sure proof supporting just about any opinion you wish to hold.

    The comments are...sassy.

    Racial makeup of NYPD, I assume these are the cops on the street who do most of the shooting:

    Of 22,199 officers on patrol, 53% (11,717) were black, Latino (of any race), or Asian or Asian-American, and 47% (10,482) were non-Hispanic white. Of 5,177 detectives, 57% (2,953) were white and 43% (2,224) were people of color.

    Maybe the only thing inarguable is that Asians and Hispanics in NYC seem to keep out of the way of cop trouble way more than whites and Blacks.

    OK, maybe not inarguable on TL...

    I've read a couple of these now (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    for both NY and the nation, and one thing that sticks out from all of them is this:

    "No agency appears to track the number of police shootings or killings of unarmed victims in a systematic, comprehensive way."  

    Basically - we don't know how many people the police have shot or killed because they won't tell us and don't keep track.  I can't be the only one who doesn't think that's an accident.

    "the FBI's justifiable homicides database paints only a partial picture--accounting for cases in which an officer killed a felon. It does not necessarily include cases involving victims like Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and others who were unarmed when confronted by police."

    This was pretty disturbing though:  41 people were shot at by police.  12 people shot at police.  So about 70% of the time, cops are the only ones shooting, which means they shoot first (maybe the other 30% of the time they did too, who knows).  Maybe it's just me but our cities and towns are not war zones.  Cops should not be that paranoid, and should not be shooting people who aren't an actual threat to their lives.  Maybe some of those 70% had guns that they were pointing in the direction of the cops that never went off.  But somehow I seriously doubt that was the case for most of them, especially as only 28 of the 41 were actually hit by police gunfire.

    Parent

    the last paragraph (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:48:10 AM EST
    relates specifically to the NYC data

    Parent
    to only firing if they themselves are being fired upon, but I agree that it's probably not a coinky dinky that data that could be used to critique or control or change our police actions is not data that the police collect.

    Parent
    I don't think they should be limited to it either (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    But I do think it should be a last resort.  And 70% seems pretty high.

    Parent
    NYPD demographic stats (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:41:19 PM EST
    from wiki...

    Parent
    RIP, Bobby Keys (1943-2014). (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 04:58:48 AM EST
    This has been a tough last few years for fans of some of rock-and-roll's truly notable saxophonists, with the passing of the E Street Band's Clarence Clemons in June 2011, Greg Ham from Men at Work in April 2012, Rafael Ravenscroft in October of this year, and now Bobby Keys of the Rolling Stones, who died Tuesday at his home in Franklin, TN following a long illness.

    Each of those guys gave us some defining sax riffs in their day, and I think this is one of Bobby Keys' best, from the Stones' classic 1972 double album Exile on Main Street -- "Sweet Virginia."

    Keys also lent his talents to other artists, as well. Here he is wailing away with John Lennon and Elton John in "Whatever Gets You Through the Night." (This song just screams 1970s, and Keys' riff never fails to remind me of the opening credits to NBC's "Saturday Night Live" during its early years. I half-expect to hear Don Pardo announcing the names of the original cast.)

    Aloha.

    Oh man... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:48:09 AM EST
    A big reason that Exile is Exile was Mr. Keys sax work...he puts his stamp on that masterpiece on several tracks...Rip This Joint, Casino Boogie, Happy...

    One of my faves though is his first ever appearance on Stones vinyl..."Live With Me" off "Let it Bleed".  And who could forget the sax solo on "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'".

    Heaven's horn section just got tighter...

    Parent

    Since riling people up is a favorite pastime here (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 07:37:30 AM EST
    This is for Jim:

    This year is on track to become one of the hottest ever recorded, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)...

    if high temperatures continue at current rates, 2014 will be the hottest in 135 years of record-keeping...

    If November and December maintain the same tendency, then 2014 will likely be the hottest on record, ahead of 2010, 2005 and 1998...

    Michel Jarraud, WMO secretary-general, said the information on 2014 means that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all taken place in the 21st century.
     



    Was just reading about this (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:35:24 AM EST
    but you know what?  It also shattered cold records in places.  Like right here!  For our local TV weather area-

    There have been more than 400 record lows and record cool highs set, covering 43 states, since Sunday. That leaves only five states in the contiguous U.S., all in New England, that have not experienced record cold temperatures this week.

    On Wednesday morning record lows were broken or tied from New York to Houston. Thursday morning brought more record cold to parts of the Southeast.

    I am assuming this is the beginning of the brutal winter for this area they have been predicting for months.

    But nothing to see here....


    Parent

    Record lows for a day mean nothing (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    and equally unimportant are one day record highs which are meaningful for nothing more than water cooler chatter. Average temps on the other hand are meaningful. Of course there have been no worldwide record lows recently, but the hottest 15 global years on record are all within the last 17 years.


    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:57:24 AM EST
    i am just pointing that the weather has lost its mind.

    Parent
    Always remember, (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    there is a huge difference between "weather" and "climate."
    Something that seems to be totally lost on the climate change science deniers.

    Parent
    Global temps aren't rising (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:51:46 AM EST
    But this has been one of hottest years on record.

    Yes, it will be interesting to see if he can reconcile his bias with the latest facts.

    Parent

    Cosby +3 and Gloria Allred (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    "It could be advantageous for Mr. Cosby to give up the statute of limitations because there is a huge cloud on his reputation and legacy," Allred said. "The public deserves to know if Mr Cosby is a saint or a sexual predator."

    LINK

    That make 26 people making allegations against Cosby.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:52:58 AM EST
    It could be advantageous for Mr. Cosby to give up the statute of limitations because there is a huge cloud on his reputation and legacy," Allred said

    Sounds like Allred is hoping Cosby will give her a chance to make money. What she really meant to say was, "It could be advantageous for me for Mr. Cosby to give up the statute of limitations"

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:43:20 AM EST
    ...she is baiting him with his own words.  But I mean really, like Cosby is going to set-up a $100M fund for victims.  Seems more like a strategy to keep Cosby quite as he can't really proclaim his innocence without some version of 'put your money where your mouth is'.

    Parent
    2.48 a gallon (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:22:46 AM EST
    i just filled up.  What a nice surprise.

    Haven't been out yet today (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:33:22 AM EST
    but according to "cheap gas" the price in my neighborhood is $2.32.

    Since I need to fill up today, the price will probably drop quite a bit tomorrow. ;o)

    Parent

    That's pretty good (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:25:53 AM EST
    that was supposed to be 2.38 but still, I would have thought our little discount place on the middle of nowhere would have been cheaper.

    Maybe there is something to this "competition" thing.

    Parent

    First sighting... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:25:39 AM EST
    of under $3 off the Rez here yesterday...2.97.

    F*ckin' awesome, yet somewhat disheartening that 2.97 feels like a steal.  

    Parent

    Timar's cop killer (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by Palli on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:29:54 AM EST
    Timothy Loehmann was "allowed" to resign 1 day after receiving his Police commission from Police Academy. The Independence police department didn't want him on the streets. When months later he applied to the Cleveland police department NO one asked to see his personnel file from past employment in the Independence OH police dept.or, apparently, his police academy record.

    "While our policy does not require obtaining a personnel file prior to employment, the Cleveland Division of Police has amended our policies to request a personnel file from previous employers," a Cleveland police spokesperson said yesterday.

    Highlights from Loehmann's file:
    "... "follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal."
    "...show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions."
    "genuine in his explanations, and takes criticism well. It just appears that he is not mature enough in his accepting of responsibility or his understanding in the severity of his loss of control on the range."
    "It appears from the pattern developing within our short time frame with Ptl. Loehmann that he often feels that when told to do something, that those instructions are optional, and that he can manipulate them if he so feels it can better serve him. I do not say he is doing this for some benefit, or in an insubordinate way, but he just appears to have the mind set that if he thinks he knows better, than that is the course he follows..."
    "I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies."

    CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT GAVE TIM LOEHMANN A GUN.

    DoJ is not leaving the CMPD any day soon.

    "Chef Arnold" a serial feeder (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:30:57 AM EST
    of the homeless in Ft. Lauderdale will be able to continue his soup kitchen, Love Thy Neighbor, for, at least, through the Christmas season.  A Broward Circuit judge suspended enforcement of the new Ft. Lauderdale ordinance restricting the public feeding of homeless people for 30-days and ordered mediation.

    The 90-year old soup kitchen chef and WWII veteran was ordered by police to "drop that plate, now" and  cited as being in violation of the ordinance.   Ft. Lauderdale is considering an appeal of the judge's order, but the mayor has welcomed mediation hoping that the city and the Chef "can meet half-way."   Yes, half-way.  Probably, somewhere between Ft. Lauderdale and Fresno.

    Thanks KD... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:55:40 AM EST
    we could all use the good news, and a reminder that the system can deliver a sliver of justice once in awhile...even if only for 30 days.

    Me thinks the mayor has his work cut out for him trying to neuter Chef Arnold though...that saint is committed to doing god's work, and luckily he's 90 and white so the odds are good he won't be shot to death or choked out while doing it in defiance of the law.

    Parent

    Statesboro Blues by Taj Majal (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    Loving this classic cover today. (link) Gotta cheer up somehow, after bailing water last night and saving my worthless landlord thousands on ruined hardwood floors. You know what that will get me when the lease is up? A nice little rent increase.

    Dadler Jr's concert band has his holiday concert tonight though, just in time for his old man's sanity. Love hearing that boy blow his horn. In the nice, new performing arts center at the high school. All's not lost yet.

    Peace out, y'all.

    You need the treat... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    and unlike many parents going to holiday concerts to hear clarinets squeaking out of tune, your boy and his band can really play!

    A better start to 2015 than the end of 2014 for you my good man...

    Parent

    Thanks, Dog (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    BTW, I think I'm going to try to bring my dad to NYC in the spring. He seems kind of desperate to get there one more time. He'll be 88 by then, I think, so here's hoping he stays in good health. I'll keep you apprised, maybe we'll hit Katz's again with him, he's forever the lower east side kid at heart. Hope all's well back east. Peace out.

    Parent
    Takes no arm twisting... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:16:42 PM EST
    to see you again my friend, nor feasting on Pastrami on Rye and half sours.  

    Good lord willing and the cops don't choke, I'll be here! ;)

    Parent

    Taj Mahal used to come to Aspen (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    every summer, and we all got to know him.  He would walk all over town and talk to everybody.  I had a Cadillac Eldorado and a 1947 Ford pickup. He would never ride in the Eldo, but loved to cruise in the '47.  Fond memories, thanks for that Dadler.

    Parent
    You have the best stories, my man (none / 0) (#159)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    Next time I get near you in Florida, I swear, I am making a pilgrimage. ;-)

    Parent
    At lest I hope it's FL (none / 0) (#174)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    Otherwise, I ain't been payin' attention.

    Parent
    Yes, fishcamp is (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    in Florida.
    Between the two of you, you have some of the absolutely most interesting life stories.  I would love to be a bug on the wall to listen to both of your reminiscences if you do manage to get together.

    Parent
    fishcamp, big college football news. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    Oregon Sate football coach Mike Riley has accepted the job as Bo Pellini's successor at Nebraska.

    Riley, who has coached the Beavers for the last 100 years (really just 14 years) has previously proclaimed his desire to coach in Corvallis for the rest of his career. Now he says the Cornhusker's offer was too good an opportunity to pass up.

    I have been to both Corvallis, OR and Lincoln, NE. I can tell you Corvallis is the more desirable town, and its appeal is enhanced by the fact that, unlike Lincoln, it is not the state capital, so is not teeming with politicians and lobbyists and their attendant entourages.

    Good luck, Mike. IMO, the Big 10 has nothing on the Pac 12.

    Downton Abbey Season 5 (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    I went to a sneak preview event last night hosted by our local PBS station. People were in costume -  it was a lot of fun to watch with an enthusiastic crowd cheering the Dowager Countess. They played the first episode of the new season,which starts in January here in the states. It definitely got me excited about the new season. I love the way they take themes we knew were coming, like the changing times for masters of the great house and their relationships with their servants, and throw in an unexpected twist, illustrating the way the changes manifested themselves in real lives. Times are changing for Lord Grantham in many unexpected ways. Maggie Smith is still wonderful, and Michelle Dockery's Lady Mary is even lovelier and more mature, you really see the great lady emerging. Thomas the devious footman has twists and reversals even in one episode!  For an hour of TV, a lot happened.

    Isis the now unfortunately named yellow lab is still a favorite character.

    I mean, does anyone look better lounging (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    by a roaring fire in the drawing room than Isis? I think not.

    Parent
    "z to a" will appreciate the last l (none / 0) (#208)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    of this comment!

    Parent
    It did not take anything said (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:42:29 PM EST
    here to tell people that an injustice was done in this case. Getting killed should not be the penalty for smarting off to, or even reaching inside a window and struggling with, a police officer.  

    Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    i am absolutely sure.  Trust me on this.

    CST, Hollywood is definitely not (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 03:43:10 PM EST
    full of people willing to help or defend sexual predators.  I have worked with many stars, and all that I'v known have been aware of Cosby's messy life, and never wanted to help him, or associate with him.  The public, on the other hand loved the Cos, because they didn't know his history.  Naturally none of these allegations have been proven in court, but are well known among the Hollywood big shots.  Polanski did his bad deed in Jack's swimming pool, while Jack was away, and has never been forgiven by him.  But Polanski fled, and didn't stay in the limelight, like Cosby did.  I didn't know Polanski, and have no idea if he continued his evil behavior in Europe.  You are, of course, correct about the media's relentless pushing for a bigger story.

    About cameras (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 04:40:27 PM EST
      They won't provide a panacea. Eliminating bad actors undertaking bad acts won't happen. Nor will the evidence they provide always lead to the bad actors being appropriately sanctioned for their bad acts. All the technology in the world won't overcome the dark side of human nature.

      That doesn't mean they cannot help prevent wrongs and lead to better decisions after the fact.

      IF 10% of cope were to refrain from shooting because they know the camera is running that would a number of people without bullets in them. (or with other physical or legal injury resulting from other forms of misconduct). Likewise, even if some factfinders construe videos in a way we find wrong, that doesn't mean other factfinders won't see them as we do and render decisions they would not have rendered if it was just the cops' words against others.

       I've been on both sides of the telltale video in court and it always make some difference and is sometimes conclusive.

    If I'm a wingnut (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Jack203 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 06:18:11 PM EST
    So's the President, as I agree with him about 99% of the time, including his comments on Ferguson and NYC.

    Arguing with political radicals over the internet is never a worthwhile activity, which is why I try to avoid it like the plague.  Being in the center is tough as you're hated from both sides.

    I mostly come here for Jeralyn's ISIS coverage, which is the best around, and a topic I find interesting.  When it comes to NYC and Ferguson, I think the grand juries got it right.  The grand jury will also get it right in Cleveland WITH an indictment.  They will be 3-3 no matter how much radicals incite racial hatred and violence.

    Unlike a few here who want and have admitted otherwise, I am extremely anti-racial animosity and violence.

    MO & Angel (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    Not sure if Cruz is a symptom or the disease.  One thing is clear he and those like him have wrenched the discourse so far to the right that if you don't literally wear a white hood you get to call yourself a centrist.  It's laughable but not really funny.

    As far as TL being a fun place to troll I think it's up to us to make it less fun.  I plan to do that at every opportunity.  I love this place and I am not going to allow it to be over run.  I've seen it happen before.  The reason it has not happened here is our hostess.  She does not allow them to use the bullying tactics they have learned in less civilized places on the web.

    We need to call it out.


    I just sent TL a donation (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by ZtoA on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    Please, if anyone here can do so, please send TL a donation. Let J know how much this site - so unique - is valued. I value it with my $$ even more than I value saving for then buying art.

    The price.. (5.00 / 5) (#228)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:44:58 PM EST
    of gas.  By TL-troll standards, Pres Obama must be a genius!

    McBain (4.40 / 5) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    What do you mean by "Right now"? have things changed or you more aware of recent shooting because of the media?

    You are correct, sorry I should have scratched the 'right now' part of my statement, "If a black person appears to have an object that looks like a weapon, cops are free to shoot."

    That's BS.  Cops shoot white people too you just don't hear about it.
    Really find me a dead white 12 year old who was killed by a police bullet.  If that is problem, find white person killed inside a store because the cops couldn't be bothered to find out if the toy they were holding was a dangerous weapon.  If that is a problem, any white person shot by the cops who posed no threat to the police or the public.

    Are you aware of any proof that cops don't afford black people the same process? I'm not and I don't believe what I see in the media is an accurate depiction of our society.  

    So basically, it has nothing to do with the police who are shooting black people without even realizing they are kids and/or are holding toys inside Wallmart.  If only the 'media' would cover when white kids and white people were gunned down by cops there would not be a problem ?

    If it makes you feel better, let's pretend this rash of cops killing black people, was a rash of cops killing white people including a child, would that be a problem, or would the media be the problem in those cases as well ?  

    At some point you have to realize the evil media isn't pulling the triggers that are killing innocent black people.

    I am still trying to wrap my head around your belief that the media likes to cover dead black people more than dead white people.

    If the race angle makes you uncomfortable, let's pretend they are white, I still find what the police did in both instances very problematic, innocent children and adults should not have to fear that picking up a toy gun in a store in in a park may result in their being killed by the very people tasked to their safety.

    Maybe you would be more at home in places that ensure the media doesn't upset the general population with it's reporting of unsavory events, say N Korea or S Arabia.  Those countries are right in line with your hatred of the media.

    Challenging people to come up with "THAT":
    Really find me a dead white 12 year old who was killed by a police bullet.  If that is problem, find white person killed inside a store because the cops couldn't be bothered to find out if the toy they were holding was a dangerous weapon.  If that is a problem, any white person shot by the cops who posed no threat to the police or the public.

    See, your comment is based on the the premise that "my opinion is THIS because THAT is a fact" which should mean that if THAT was proven not to be a fact then your opinion on THIS would change.

    Cop Shoots And Kills [White] Man With BB Gun

    Warning: Graphic Violence. This video is a cop's dashcam footage of him emptying his pistol from about 10 feet away into a guy in a car who had a toy gun.

    Parent

    Your point is valid (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:36:18 AM EST
      as a response to Scott, but doesn't really address the broader issue.

      The important question is whether a black person is more likely to be killed by the police because he is black.

      Examples of white people  unjustifiably killed by cops exist. It's quite possible that in absolute terms more white people are unjustifiably killed by cops (clearly more are killed, the question is "unjustifiably").

       Available statistics, let alone anecdotes, can't answer that question. Each case is unique. Without a thorough (and open) investigation of each individual case,  a comparison of the "objective" factors other than race involved in each unique case and then  cross-tabulation by race  we really have no valid facts from which to compile meaningful statistics which bear on the real question.

      One could also argue  that the influence of race on police deadly force decision-making  wouldn't be fully and accurately discernible even if we had the facts described in the paragraph above.

      I'd suggest that would require an even more monumental, if not impossible, task. That would be incorporating cases where a police officer would have been justified in employing deadly force but refrained. Those kinds of cases exist too, and compilation and analysis of the unique facts in each of those cases would also shed light on the issue.

     

    Parent

    This is an excellent point (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    I'd suggest that would require an even more monumental, if not impossible, task. That would be incorporating cases where a police officer would have been justified in employing deadly force but refrained. Those kinds of cases exist too, and compilation and analysis of the unique facts in each of those cases would also shed light on the issue.

    For reference and comparison's sake:  49,851 law enforcement officers were assaulted in 2013 while on duty (not counting federal law enforcement officers).

    The following information concerns duly sworn city, university and college, county, state, and tribal law enforcement officers who were assaulted in the line of duty in 2013 and who met certain other criteria.

    Overview

    In 2013, the FBI collected assault data from 11,468 law enforcement agencies that employed 533,895 officers. These officers provided service to more than 247 million persons, or 78.2 percent of the nation's population.
    Law enforcement agencies reported that 49,851 officers were assaulted while performing their duties in 2013.

    The rate of officer assaults in 2013 was 9.3 per 100 sworn officers.

    More information about these topics is provided in Tables 65, 66, 70, and 71.

    Injuries

    Of the 49,851 officers who were assaulted in 2013, 14,565 (29.2 percent) sustained injuries.
    31.0 percent of the officers who were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet) suffered injuries.

    14.6 percent of the officers who were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments were injured.

    10.9 percent of officers who were attacked with firearms were injured.

    27.0 percent of officers who were attacked with other dangerous weapons were injured.

    More information about this topic is provided in Tables 65, 66, and 70.

    Times of incidents

    For the fifteenth consecutive year, the largest percentage of assaults on officers (15.1 percent) happened from 12:01 a.m. to 2 a.m.

    The smallest percentage of assaults on officers (2.5 percent) occurred between 6:01 a.m. and 8 a.m.

    More information about this topic is provided in Table 67.

    Circumstances

    Of all officers who were assaulted in 2013:

    31.2 percent were responding to disturbance calls (family quarrels, bar fights, etc.).

    16.3 percent were attempting other arrests.

    12.8 percent were handling, transporting, or maintaining custody of prisoners.

    So it seems that a vast majority of officers can and do show restraint.

    Parent

    Your video makes Scott's point (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by vicndabx on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:37:04 AM EST
    Not only did the copy not even say freeze or drop it or anything, one second he's talking, the next he d@mn near empties his clip in the guy.

    Is this the same guy you tried to use as an example months ago?

    Keep searching.  Or maybe you shouldn't.


    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    Scott then goes on to say that even if it is cops killing innocent white people it's still completely f*cked up.

    I think there are two issues here, one is race, and one is general police heavy-handedness.  They aren't mutually exclusive, but they can act independently as well.

    I know plenty of white people who also have really  bad cop stories.  They tend to be less clean cut than your typical office worker.  That may also make a difference in a cop reaction (just like being black) - but it shouldn't.

    Parent

    I Am Truly Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    That to me, from what I could make out appears to be a purposeful act.  Knowingly raising a weapon, even a toy, to the police is not in the same realm, whatsoever, as walking down the street or an aisle in store and being gunned down.

    And I am truly sorry you can not distinguish the difference.  I think you need to keep digging to find a situation in which there was no contact or provocation, before the shooting.

    When I said find an instance, I thought it was obvious that the circumstance had to be similar, not just a case where a bb/toy gun was involved.  So I will mention this fairly obvious fact, there are situations in which the police are justified on shooting someone who has a fake gun.  The missing component is provocation or contact with the police.

    What is amazing to me is that anyone would justify either set of cops in those situations, because they are the same ones claiming it's not about race, which would mean if it was their kid, their brother, or even them, that the police were justified in the shootings even though the victim did absolutely nothing illegal.

    That does not make sense to me.

    Parent

    any white person shot by the cops (none / 0) (#175)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    any white person shot by the cops who posed no threat to the police or the public.

    Wow. You are usually pretty reasonable, but I guess this has to be super duper crazy specific for you.

    OK, how about this white kid, 17 y/o, shot dead by the popo because he had a video game controller in his hand.

    Parent

    Your case strongly suggests that (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    Grand Juries view police actions differently depending on who the police kill.

    Grand jury: Officer used unauthorized force in deadly shooting of teen

    Channel 2 Action News has learned that a grand jury has found that a Euharlee police officer was not authorized to shoot a 17-year-old while responding to a call in February.
     ...
    Tuesday the Cherokee County District Attorney's Office said a grand jury heard testimony in the case over the course of two days and found that the use of force by Gatny was not authorized.
    ...
    The grand jury also recommended that the DA's office take further action in the case.



    Parent
    Another case in point... (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    to your point yesterday, body cameras for cops obviously is not the answer to our police violence and lack of accountability problem.

    Back to the drawing board...I'm thinking we can leave the prosecuting of police to the local DA's who are too buddy-buddy with the local precincts.  Perhaps we gotta hand these cases off to the feds right out the gate or something, local DA's have an inherent conflict of interest, even if they are seeking an indictment on the up and up the conflict still leaves doubt as to fairness.  

    Or maybe need to stop convening special grand juries too, let the sitting grand jury that's hearing all the other cases decide on an indictment...at least that way the grand jurors will notice how differently the DA treats an accused cop vs. an accused civilian.

    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:49:49 AM EST
    the incestuous Relationship between cops and prosecutors has made it impossible for any one killed by a cop to get a fair hearing.  This has been proven again and again.  There has to be another solution.   Special prosecutors for police killings seems to be to most logical.  Everywhere.

    Parent
    Or this (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    Response (none / 0) (#116)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    "I am still trying to wrap my head around your belief that the media likes to cover dead black people more than dead white people."

    I'm surprised you can't see that.  Playing the race angle is worth money and ratings right now.  There have been vicious attacks by young black males against white people that get very little or no media coverage because it's not good for ratings.

    The reverse seems to be true with women in domestic cases.  If a black woman is killed, no one cares, but if an attractive white woman is killed, it's big business.

    Parent

    The reason we don't hear about... (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    black civilians attacking white civilians is civilians are typically held accountable for such crimes, while law enforcement is typically not.

    Sadly, everyday acts of violence, followed by everyday arrests and prosecutions, are too common to be news worthy enough to sell soap.

    Parent

    That's a fair point (2.00 / 1) (#144)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    "the reason we don't hear about black civilians attacking white civilians is civilians are typically held accountable for such crimes, while law enforcement is typically not."

    It's more interesting when the accused doesn't face charges, or is found not guilty, or has a chance of either.

    While I don't believe racism is a big problem I do believe many black defendants get the shaft in the legal system.  I think it has more to do with lack of money than race but I'm sure race plays a part too.

    Parent

    How Is Racism Not a Big Problem When... (none / 0) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    ...when you believe "many black defendants get the shaft in the legal system."

    I can't think anything worse than getting shafted in the legal system, which includes the most basic right of all, liberty.

    So not a big deal that black people get their liberty taken away unfairly, or is that not what you meant by 'getting shafted' in the legal system ?

    At least you are acknowledging that racism exists in the legal system, it's too bad you don't think other people's liberty being taken away unfairly is a big problem.


    Parent

    As I said before (none / 0) (#160)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    I think it has more to do with money than race.  Many of the black defendants who get the shaft don't have the money to hire good defense lawyers.  They end up with overworked public defenders.  

    Parent
    Finally (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    something we agree on.  It's a problem of class as much as race.   The problem with that is brown people make up a disproportionate number of the poorer classes.

    Parent
    These are Your Words (none / 0) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    I do believe many black defendants get the shaft in the legal system.  I think it has more to do with lack of money than race but I'm sure race plays a part too.

    You clearly state that race is part of the equation.  And for the record I agree with you, money in the legal system negates race IMO, but it still exists for the ones without it, and that is very bothersome to me.  That everything else being equal, skin color matters in our legal system, and since the front end of the legal system is the police, it's especially shameful and leads to assumptions on the streets based on skin color.

    Parent

    I agree with that (none / 0) (#182)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    but I'll add the assumptions on the streets don't just come from white people. Black people also racially profile other blacks.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by vicndabx on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    Remember the knockout game?

    Sensationalized crimes most certainly get coverage.  I watch the local news and see plenty of brown suspect faces.

    Please provide examples of sensationalized black on white crime not being covered.

    Parent

    I do remember the knock out game (none / 0) (#141)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    Do you seriously believe those attacks got anywhere near the coverage of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown?

    Do you remember the Norfolk Virginia attack on a while couple by several black men? It was originally reported it was a revenge attack for Trayvon Martin.  The main stream media buried that.

    This really isn't a debatable issue.  Right now, the media gets better ratings with dead black men than dead white men.

    Parent

    Recently (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by vicndabx on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    as opposed to say, the last 20-30 years.


    Right now, the media gets better ratings with dead black men than dead white men.

    Further, "dead black men" happen all the time, it's not on the news.  Dead white men happen all the time too, they don't get coverage either.

    I don't buy it.  The media covers what they think is newsworthy and yes, they have to sell advertising slots, this is news?

    What is noteworthy, is the issues these communities face that may not have been in the forefront of the nation's consciousness are getting more coverage.  IMO, that's a good thing.  What is also revealed is that the issues faced are not just impacting communities of color.

    btw, your story about a VA couple attacked because of Trayvon Martin appears to be rumor and does not have any factual basis.  That is why it wasn't carried by "the media".

    Parent

    The media has a fondness for covering (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    white women in peril of any kind - missing, dead, whatever.  And if she's blonde, buckle up, because the media's going to DefCon 1.  Watch a random episode or two of Dateline or one of those kinds of shows - how many of them feature a person of color as the victim?

    And, at least in my opinion, the media seem to get much more worked up when black people harm white people than they do when it's the other way around.  

    The sad reality is that there is just way too much death and injury being inflicted on people - and whether the numbers are marginally smaller or not is of little consolation.  We seem to be in an ever-degenerating spiral where "conflict resolution" really means "just draw your weapon and start shooting - the last person standing wins!"  And the cops - who really should be the standard-bearer for de-escalation - seem as inclined to shoot just as precipitously and prematurely as the citizens they are supposed to be serving.

    The cop in the Tamir Rice shooting should never, ever have been allowed to put on a police uniform again after demonstrating in his first job that he did not possess the skills to do the job effectively.  And I hope the city of Cleveland pays a steep price for deciding to hire him.

    Parent

    Yes... (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:41:02 PM EST
    ...you tackled the easiest of easy points, I get it, the media isn't covering race the way you would like.  But they aren't pulling the trigger they are paying cops to shoot people.  So I will repeat what I said above:
    If the race angle makes you uncomfortable, let's pretend they are white, I still find what the police did in both instances very problematic, innocent children and adults should not have to fear that picking up a toy gun in a store in in a park may result in their being killed by the very people tasked to their safety.

    Do you find the police shooting people, including children, who pose no threat, who the police have no had any contact with, disturbing ?  And should they go to jail ?

    Parent

    Not facts, opinions (2.50 / 4) (#229)
    by Jack203 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:42:08 PM EST
    The grand jury listened to the facts and voted against probable cause.  From the limited evidence I've seen, I agree with their decision.

    And I hope New York follows Ferguson's lead and releases all the actual facts given to the GJ.  

    I understand this is talkleft and not talkcentral.  But I was hoping the left would be a little more rational than the right.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised as the left is out for blood after "losing" the Darren Wilson case.  All rational debate is thrown out the window and any disagreement you are immediately cast as a member of the KKK.

    I'm a communist to the far right as I want to raise taxes on the rich, rebuild our inner cities by increasing spending by billions, and reduce spending to the military industrial complex, and  to the far left I am KKK because I agree with two grand juries.  What else is new.


    Response to Donald From Hawaii (2.00 / 2) (#213)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    "Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a conservative POV, which you quite obviously do. And while it's certainly not my intent to hurt your feelings, nevertheless I must be terribly blunt in stating my growing exasperation with your comments here at TL."

    Too bad. You don't like my point of view... get over it.

    "So, please be honest in your conservatism henceforth, and state your point to that effect clearly and respectfully:"

    Does that apply to everyone or just me?

    You seem to think I have to pick a political side on an issue and be 100% consistent with that. Guess, what... that's not how I do things.  Sometimes my view is going to appear very conservative.  Sometimes it won't.  I believe in innocent until proven guilty and not jumping to conclusions.  I sometimes see both sides to an issue.  Not everything is clear cut black and white.  

    "You've got this charade of faux naiveté going on here in which you're pretending to be fair and open-minded."

    Again, does that only apply to me? Are you saying I'm less open-minded than most people in here?  

    I love a good debate, but I can's stand BS.  Do, you really want TL to only have one point of view? Do you really want to discourage me from posting in the future?  Relax, take a deep breath, and think about what you really want and then look at yourself before you criticize others.

    Some interesting stats I saw posted at DK (1.89 / 9) (#4)
    by Redbrow on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:03:10 PM EST

        Police killings of blacks down 70% in last 50 years
        In 2012, 123 blacks were killed by police with a gun
        In 2012, 326 whites were killed by police with a gun

    (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CDC)

        In 2013, blacks committed 5,375 murders
        In 2013, whites committed 4,396 murders
        Whites are 63% of the population blacks are 13%

    (FBI, Census Bureau)


    Why? (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 06:14:30 AM EST
    What makes them "interesting"?  Or relevant, for that matter, in a discussion of police force used against AAs?

    If you're posting them (while completely ignoring the substance of the DK article), there must be a reason.

    Or not.

    Parent

    Unbelievable (4.33 / 6) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:14:08 PM EST
    LINK

    O'Reilly slammed Dyson's claim and laid out data refuting the volatile assertion:
        Police killings of blacks down 70% in last 50 years
        In 2012, 123 blacks were killed by police with a gun
        In 2012, 326 whites were killed with a gun

    (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CDC)

        In 2013, blacks committed 5,375 murders
        In 2013, whites committed 4,396 murders
        Whites are 63% of the population blacks are 13%

    (FBI, Census Bureau)

    O'Reilly took these statistics to mean that "anyone thinking clearly can see that the homicide rate among blacks is way out of proportion." O'Reilly asserted that the disparity of homicide rates explained the "police intrusion into black precincts." Since in a whopping 90 percent of black homicides the the offender is black.

    But as you can bet, there's more to these stats than O'Reilly lets on, as I will discuss below the fold.

    You really the bottom of the freakin barrel aren't you

    Parent

    The problem, of course (none / 0) (#15)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:54:55 PM EST
    is the media loves to play up white on black violence.   Here are some of my favorite emotional rants I've heard on cable news...

    It's open season on young black males
    White cops can kill blacks with impunity
    Black lives don't matter to cops

    Parent

    Are you defending that?^ (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:58:06 PM EST
    I think those rants are BS (none / 0) (#20)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:09:57 PM EST
    I think you know that's not what I mean (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:14:51 PM EST
    are you defending posting those cooked O'Reilly numbers?


    Fox: Distorting the stats on police killings of black people,

    As if they were real.  I would like to know.

    Parent

    I don't know if they are cooked (none / 0) (#23)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:22:12 PM EST
    Do you?  I do believe black on white violence is almost ignored in the MSM.  

    Also feel free to answer my question to you and the blog from the last thread about the Tamir Rice case...  

    What do you want to happen?

    The cop to be convicted of murder? another charge?
    The cop to be indicted and face trial?
    Cops never be allowed to shoot first?
    Wait for more information?
    Something else?
    Or do you just want to complain when someone believes in innocent until proven guilty?

    Parent

    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    i answered that question in the last thread.   I want him charged and brought to trial.

    Parent
    For some reason I can't view your respose (none / 0) (#39)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:51:53 PM EST
    in the last thread but I have it now.  I'm not sure I agree just yet but I respect that response.

    I tried to read the article on distorting stats and my head exploded.  I'm going to finish watching the Walking Dead and try again in the morning.  

    BTW, I think stats are extremely important for just about everything but rarely are they used correctly.  

    Parent

    I like you (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:13:26 AM EST
    against my better judgement

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    Can I have some of that stuff you're smoking?  Must be pretty powerful sh!t.    ;-)

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:22:38 PM EST
    its my curse.  Always attracted to the wrong men.

    €-p

    Parent

    Are you absolutely sure (none / 0) (#196)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    that McBain is a man?   ;-)
    And always remember, "don't bogart that joint" (or bong, or vaporizer), my friend.

    Parent
    Btw (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:15:11 AM EST
    you probably missed it because after 200 comments can't be connected to replies so some one rated it and it moved up the thread.  If you scroll up enough you will find it.

    Parent
    Did you read the Daily Kos (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:26:33 PM EST
    debunking of the numbers That I linked to?   Not in the mood to change the subject.  You seem fond of saying you don't know.  Well, it's easy.  Read the post and decide for yourself.

    Parent
    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:32:27 AM EST
     that Daily Kos article is pretty nonsensical and in no way, shape or manner "debunks" the numbers cited, which were:

       O'Reilly slammed Dyson's claim and laid out data refuting the volatile assertion:
         Police killings of blacks down 70% in last 50 years
         In 2012, 123 blacks were killed by police with a gun
         In 2012, 326 whites were killed with a gun
    (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CDC)

        In 2013, blacks committed 5,375 murders
         In 2013, whites committed 4,396 murders
         Whites are 63% of the population blacks are 13%

    (FBI, Census Bureau)

       Neither does it  "debunk" this assertion:

    O'Reilly took these statistics to mean that "anyone thinking clearly can see that the homicide rate among blacks is way out of proportion."

      Where the guy could have made some semblance of a valid argument is if he had coherently  critiqued this:

     O'Reilly asserted that the disparity of homicide rates explained the "police intrusion into black precincts." Since in a whopping 90 percent of black homicides the offender is black.

       It's indisputable that blacks as a group  commit homicide at a much higher rate than whites and are  the victims of homicide at a much higher rate than whites. The issue with O'Reilly's claim has nothing to do with his statistics which amply and accurately illustrate those facts. The problem is claiming these facts explain, let alone justify, the equally indisputable fact that police shoot and kill blacks at a much higher rate than they do whites.

       Rounding, there are approximately 40 million black people in the USA and 225 million white people. 123 (number blacks shot and killed by cops) of 40 mill is approx. 3.1 per million; 326 of 225 mill is 1.4 per million. If, comparing these numbers to the black vs. white homicide rate to justify police killings had any validity, then the fact that approximately 143 per million blacks commit a homicide in a year as opposed to only 19.5 out of a million whites would seem compelling.

       It doesn't have any validity though, and that's the problem, not that O'Reilly's numbers are misleading. You can use accurate numbers in a misleading way.

      The argument that because someone belongs to a group that commits approximately 7 times more homicides per capita his being killed is justified is a logical fallacy. The conclusion simply does not flow from the premise.

      O'Reilly seems to be implying that because of this higher rate, blacks as a group are more likely to be confronted by police and thus because a greater number of confrontations is likely to result in a greater number of violent outcomes, a higher rate of blacks being killed by cops is to be expected without any influence of race.

       THAT is O'Reilly's sin here. His numbers do nothing to refute the influence of race affecting the use of police force.

      First, as the numbers clearly demonstrate the percentage of total  police/citizen-suspect interactions that arise out of homicide response/investigation is a tiny tiny percentage of all such interactions. Second, we don't see anyone setting out stats to show what percentage of police killings involve citizen-suspects suspected of homicide.  I don't have them either, but I'd bet that while it's a  higher number than percentage of police killings where most other crimes are involved, there is likely no sound statistical evidence that a known or suspected "homicide" by the killed citizen is either a highly significant factor in absolute terms or in comparative analysis between races. Obviously, way over 99.9% of all confrontations between police and suspects of all races involve matters other than homicide.

       The real issues are the relative likelihood of a person of  a different race being confronted by police for the same or similar conduct, and then the likelihood of that confrontation becoming violent.

      Finally, what the response to actual or perceived threat of violence by the citizen is the ultimate issue. IOW: (1) are the cops more likely to resort to deadly force in response to "actual" violence by a citizen dependent on race (meaning is it more likely a lesser degree of violence will more often provoke deadly force dependent on race); and, (2) are cops more likely to "perceive the threat of violence" dependent on race as opposed to behavior.

    Parent

    No I'm not going to answer any questions (1.75 / 4) (#29)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:31:18 PM EST
    People love to ask me questions but won't answer mine.  I'm tired of the hypocrites and cowards.  

    Parent
    I read the debunking article (none / 0) (#54)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:13:02 AM EST
    What I took from it was, while statistics don't lie, they can be used to mislead but I'm not sure that it really disproved the original point.   Actually, I don't even remember what the original point was, it's late and I'm tired, but I still believe racism isn't as big a problem as it's hyped up to be.

    We've made big improvements over the past 50 years.  Maybe things have stalled a bit, but I don't think they're getting worse.  We just hear about the white on black violence in the media and it seems like it's getting worse.

    Parent

    Video of the Holder announcement (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 08:49:52 PM EST
    Oops (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 09:14:38 PM EST
    here is the full version

    Interesting that the person now in charge is Loretta Lynch the presidents for Holders replacement.

    Parent

    That is not a "special" assignment (none / 0) (#60)
    by scribe on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 03:15:40 AM EST
    Loretta Lynch is the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY.  Staten Island is part of the Eastern District.  This event took place in Staten Island.  It is therefore squarely within the jurisdiction of Ms. Lynch's office.

    Parent
    I don't think I (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:01:34 AM EST
    actually said it was.

    Parent
    I wonder if we'll get to see the evidence (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:01:52 PM EST
    and testimony from the Eric Garner grand jury? I don't believe there was any promise to release it after the ruling.

    I was surprised there wasn't an indictment on a lesser charge than murder. I'd like to see what was presented about the choke/sleeper hold.  

    Short answer: "NO" (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by scribe on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 03:20:08 AM EST
    NYS is much tougher on keeping grand jury proceedings sealed and aggressively preserving GJ secrecy (i.e., prosecutors going after releases of material), possibly moreso than any else.  

    The release of GJ material in the Ferguson matter was quite extraordinary - it's the first time in my nearly 25 years of practicing law that I remember GJ material being released from a GJ that no-billed a person being investigated.  Anywhere.  For any reason.

    Parent

    Missouri has a "Sunshine Law" (none / 0) (#75)
    by RickyJim on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:46:26 AM EST
    Chapter 610  Apparently, unless the legislature has expressly forbidden the disclosure, a body can disclose it proceedings.

    Parent
    I do not believe that a grand jury (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:02:40 AM EST
    is a "public governmental body" as defined in the Missouri Statutes.

    See also, "Who is Subject to the Sunshine Law? which can be found here.

    Did you even read the statute?

    Parent

    From My Superficial Reading, (none / 0) (#87)
    by RickyJim on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:39:54 AM EST
    the Sunshine law gives conditions under which a body can refuse to release a records request.  So I will grant that maybe it is inapplicable to decide whether or not McCulloch's release of the information was legal.  If it were illegal under Missouri law, we would have heard about it already. Perhaps NY has language in its laws saying that a court order is necessary to release such records.

    Parent
    If you want to understand how McCulloch (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    justified the release of the records under the Missouri Sunshine Law, that argument can be found here, in a memorandum to the Court in support of his request.  

    In my opinion, it's a bit of an over-the-river-and-through-the-woods route to the result he wanted, but that's what lawyers do - they know where they want to end up, and have to craft a legal argument that gets them there.

    Now that it's been established that the transcription of the proceedings comprises an investigative report, what happens the next time What will be interesting to me is what happens the next time a request is made for release of the proceedings by a person who is the subject of a grand jury investigation - can that request be denied?

    If you decide to do more than superficial reading, please note that McCulloch quite clearly states that "in filing this motion, there is no suggestion that the Grand Jury is subject to the Missouri Sunshine Law."  In fact, he goes on to make it clear that this is only about records.

    Parent

    Staten Island Grand Juries (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    The "choke hold" is a red herring (2.60 / 5) (#17)
    by toggle on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:59:24 PM EST
    Choke holds were prohibited because of the danger of asphyxiating suspects or causing brain damage by cutting off their blood supply to the brain. In this case Garner died from a heart attack caused by the stress of his forcible arrest.

    If you look at the video closely, you can see that the officer initially grabs Garner by the neck for leverage--look closely at where his arms are.  He only chokes Garner for a few seconds, if he does it at all. He certainly didn't choke Garner to death.

    Parent

    You don't know what you are talking about (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:04:53 PM EST
    Have the autopsy report and death (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:30:51 AM EST
    been made public to your knowlege?  (I did google.)

    Also, I just discovered private medical examiner Dr. Baden did an informal examination in the Garner matter:

    Parent

    "death certificate" (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:56:12 AM EST
    I take it you just read the headline (2.60 / 5) (#28)
    by toggle on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:29:22 PM EST
    A homicide just means another human being contributed significantly to the death. It's not a finding that a crime occurred.

    No one has ever rescinded the finding that Garner died of a heart attack. According to Baden there is evidence of asphyxia, which, according to him, trumps the heart attack for the formal cause of death, I guess because it's human-induced.

    Also, the attribution to a "chokehold" was hedged by also claiming it was caused by chest compression.

    If you watch the video, you can see that the chokehold lasts a few seconds, not nearly long enough for Garner to suffer serious harm from being unable to breathe.

    After the cop lets his neck go, Garner is still on his stomach complaining that he can't breathe for much longer. That's the chest compression. It's a well-known danger of handcuffing people, though I didn't see anything particularly egregious from the cops. Garner just seems to have been very fragile.

    It's no surprise the cops weren't indicted.

    Parent

    You do realize, don't you (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    that Mr. Garner was asthmatic (while also having other health issues such as diabetes) which would make him even more susceptible to having his airway cut off?

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    i can read.  What's your point?

    Parent
    Howdy, if you click on (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    "Parent" at the bottom of the comment, you can see to whom a commenter is responding.  It's a little harder to tell on the thread itself.

    Parent
    I usually do (2.00 / 1) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:27:47 PM EST
    but lets be honest. There is a history.  In this case I was mistaken.  
    I grovel in mortification.

    Parent
    Tell her, (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    not me.
    Just sayin'.
    Namaste.

    Parent
    I was responding to toggle (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    I will pre-emptively accept your apology.

    Parent
    You Hit the Nail on the Head (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    The police simply not understating that not everyone being arrested is medically fit to handle their brand of brutality.

    About 25 million had asthma in 2009, ~8%.

    In 2012, 29.1 million Americans, or 9.3% of the population, had diabetes.

    When you add up all the health conditions that one might have in which a choke-hold might be problematic, there is a good chance that every cop, nearly every day is arresting someone who might not fair well when placed in a choke-hold.  

    People with health issues should not fear the police using a method that may be lethal to them when their ailment(s) are not exactly rare.  When someone claims they cannot breathe, it might be a good idea for the law enforcement to take the claim seriously, and not assume every person they arrest is in the peak of health.

    Parent

    Oh, for crying out loud! Are you for real? (4.40 / 5) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 02:54:11 AM EST
    toggle: "A homicide just means another human being contributed significantly to the death. It's not a finding that a crime occurred."

    You're a real piece of work. Do you even know what you're saying, or do you just totally get off on treating everyone you encounter like they were born yesterday? You specifically said that Eric Garner didn't die from a chokehold:

    "In this case Garner died from a heart attack caused by the stress of his forcible arrest.
     If you look at the video closely, you can see that the officer initially grabs Garner by the neck for leverage--look closely at where his arms are.  He only chokes Garner for a few seconds, if he does it at all. He certainly didn't choke Garner to death." (Emphasis is mine.)

    In response, the Cap'n posted an article in which the Staten Island, NY medical examiner specifically ruled llast August that Garner's death a homicide, because the chokehold was the immediate cause of death:

    "The city medical examiner has ruled the death of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old father whose death in police custody sparked national outrage, a homicide, saying a chokehold killed him. The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police during the July 17 stop on Staten Island, caused his death. Garner's acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors, the medical examiner determined." (Emphasis is mine.)

    So, you were clearly wrong, and yet you compound your error by offering a strawman, first pretending that the Cap'n was disputing the definition of homicide, and then presuming to overrule the findings of that medical examiner -- only one day after you couldn't follow simple directions on how to do a proper hyperlink.

    What planet are you from?

    Parent

    Thank you Donald (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:41:17 AM EST
    i was really starting to think it was me.

    Parent
    No, sir, 'tweren't you. (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    I initially considered the possibility that toggle actually has a problem with reading comprehension. But after seeing him first construct and then knock down that strawman, I've concluded that he's simply your garden variety white wingbat / AM squawk radio addict / Fox News junkie, who shall be treated by me accordingly.

    I've also lost patience with McBain's doe-eyed "trying to be reasonable / keep an open mind" shtick -- and trust me, it IS shtick. Both individuals are merely two sides of the same wingbat coin.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    What Donald said. (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Angel on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    Donald, c'mon, they're newbies, (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    and it's the Holiday Season. But I definitely agree with you.  As my friend, Hunter S. Thompson said, "Hey, buy the ticket, take the ride."

    Parent
    The term homocide doesn't automatically (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:55:01 AM EST
    Mean Criminal Homocide.  There are different forms of homocide.  Learned this this morning on CNN from someone giving legal consult to the discussed issue.

    Parent
    "Homicide," MT. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    Not "Homocide," an urban slang which can apparently summon forth the dark and nightmarish visions of a few anonymous gay-bashers online.

    Parent
    BAHAhaha (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:40:36 PM EST
    i totally missed that

    Parent
    Jack203 (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:52:51 AM EST
    you have been giving 2s since last night for explaining the facts.  I'm curious are you disputing what Donald just said?  If so could you grace us with an explanation of why and on what basis?

    Or is this just some kind of weird wing nut bonding thing that I don't get?

    Parent

    I vote for (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 09:06:08 AM EST
    Option #2.

    Parent
    I had a much cruder description (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:06:35 AM EST
    for option #2 . . . :P

    Parent
    I Am at a loss (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:37:01 PM EST
    i don't even know how to respond to that.

    Help?  Have I gone thru the looking glass?  Are any sane people still awake?  Please post something.  Just a smiley face will do.

    Parent

    At least I understand why (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:38:24 PM EST
    you could get the linking instructions

    Parent
    I got Yer Back, Jack (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:35:32 AM EST
    The coroner concluded another human being contributed to his death, aka homicide.  Just because he wasn't indicted doesn't in any way mean he isn't responsible.  And I am positive the civil courts will concur.

    No chokehold, no dead body.

    Parent

    It's tempting (3.50 / 2) (#38)
    by toggle on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:48:38 PM EST
    To rejoin an insult with an insult, but I really try not to get mad at the internet. I'm sure someone who agrees with you will come along soon enough and make you feel better.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:52:44 PM EST
    since we seem to be the only ones awake I would really like to know if you read that part of the "headline" where the Medical Examiner said the choke hold killed him?

    Parent
    You know, this part (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:55:39 PM EST
    The city medical examiner has ruled the death of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old father whose death in police custody sparked national outrage, a homicide, saying a chokehold killed him.


    Parent
    I'm awake... (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    but I just don't have the energy.  I'm doing some online shopping for x-mas.  And I hate it.  I don't know why I just find it so stressful.
    In Albuquerque they had a video of some cops killing an unstable homeless man who was camping in the foothills. It was just murder, and no one was indicted.
    Last year, I think it was, they killed a guy because he was wielding a pate knife. Yes, that's right, a pate knife. That was considered justifiable. They killed another guy because he was waving a cross at them. I think they consider it like getting a merit badge or something when you get your first "kill."  It's sort of a rite of passage. And its out of control.

    Parent
    I remember the pate knife (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:27:44 AM EST
    I remember that video. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    It's pretty hard to watch that and not be stunned, both by how lightly regarded a transient's life is to the Albuquerque police, and by just how casually it all went down. But that killing was just one of a recent rash of shootings by APD -- 40 since 2010, with 26 of them being fatal.

    Parent
    The cause of death is a term of art (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by toggle on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:58:53 PM EST
    And it's not necessarily what immediately caused someone to die. If you were thrown out of a window, your cause of death would be homicide by defenestration and not blunt trauma from hitting the ground. Get it now?

    Read the articles about the autopsy report (it doesn't seem to have been released). They list heart disease as a "contributing factor." How do you imagine it contributed?

    Parent

    Awsum (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:04:03 AM EST
    ive broken out the fvcking vodka.
    This is fun.

    Actually I'm pretty sure if the Medical Examiner says a choke hold killed him that actually means, you know, the choke hold killed hm.

    I mean I could be wrong but I don't think so.

    Parent

    You have an art degree, right? (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:24:07 AM EST
    So, did you study about this cause of death thing being a term of art? I don't recall that from my 4yrs of art school . . . . kitch, schlock and camp, yes, cause of death only when talking about dead artists, lol!~

    Pass me a drink will ya. I was thinking about a shower after this and the last open thread . . .

    Parent

    He is getting "5s" (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:31:04 AM EST
    8-}

    Parent
    Consider the source . . . 8-P (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:35:05 AM EST
    I have been given orders to get off the computer or all magazines will be shredded. My spotted monster wants some TV time :)

    Parent
    Is it a full moon (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:06:46 PM EST
    or something?

    Parent
    It's waxing gibbous, (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:38:26 AM EST
    Almost there- 95% illumination.

    Parent
    Well, here at TL, ... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 02:58:01 AM EST
    ... it's apparently causing a certain someone to wax gibberish.

    Parent
    Our fishing is controlled by (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 06:22:41 AM EST
    the tides, which are controlled by the moon.  I prefer a falling tide, on the ocean side, which I only get half the time.  The other half, I can either go to the gym, or the Everglades, where the tides are totally opposite.  Strange, as the Everglades are only 25 miles from my house.  The water is held back, over there by the islands of the keys, and can only be released through the forty two bridges in the keys.  There's more, but I'm not sure I know it.

    Parent
    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#55)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:18:23 AM EST
    but I think the ME decided the death was caused by the trauma of the choke hold and the pressure on the chest area.  I saw the same thing you did...it didn't look like he was choked to death... but maybe it caused swelling that eventually cut off blood supply to the brain?

    Parent
    The ME ruled Garner's death a homicide ... (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 03:36:28 AM EST
    ... because of the chokehold. Who is your friend toggle to say otherwise? And I think you know full well what the ME actually said, just as you likely also have a pretty good idea what a chokehold is and what it does. So, please don't insult everyone's intelligence here by deliberately acting so wide-eyed and obtuse.

    Aloha.


    Parent

    I don't understand what you're complaining about? (none / 0) (#126)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    I thought my response was fairly non confrontational. You seem to mix intelligent comments with emotional BS.  I gave my honest opinion of what I saw and heard and you didn't like it.... that's cool... we're probably not going to agree on a lot of things.  

    Parent
    It was (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by sj on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:50:09 PM EST
    I thought my response was fairly non confrontational.
    ... in its own sick, dishonest sort of way. But don't you have a bridge to protect?

    Parent
    Please just drop the pretensions ... (5.00 / 5) (#206)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    ... that you don't have a particular point of view. You've got this charade of faux naiveté going on here in which you're pretending to be fair and open-minded. Yet we all can very much see for ourselves where you're going in your comments, which invariably and eventually skew their way toward the right side of the political spectrum.

    Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a conservative POV, which you quite obviously do. And while it's certainly not my intent to hurt your feelings, nevertheless I must be terribly blunt in stating my growing exasperation with your comments here at TL.

    From my own perspective, your disingenuous kabuki dance around any forthright assertion of that conservatism has actually become quite annoying, mostly because you're simply oozing insincerity whenever you do it.

    Rather than appearing like you're really seeking to better understand the issue at hand, you've instead led me to believe that you're just trying to bait people here -- and further, to do so in a manner that somehow self-justifies your own disdain and contempt for our own respective socio-political orientations, liberal ways of life, etc., etc., etc.

    So, please be honest in your conservatism henceforth, and state your point to that effect clearly and respectfully. That's all. And because you're at a predominately progressive-liberal blog amongst some rather intelligent people, you should also:

    • Be prepared to defend your position to others with whom you might disagree. and
    • Do so without simultaneously trying to move the goalposts on us during the discussion.

    If you can at least try to do that, then I think we'll really get along just fine. That way, as an unabashed liberal who hates America so much, I can return to plotting my next heartless assault in our ongoing War on Christmas, in which I first talk these alcoholics over on skid row into wearing Santa Claus outfits in exchange for a bottle of cheap vodka, and then videotape and selectively edit the results, before sending it off to Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha ...!!!

    Happy Holidays, McBain. ;-)

    Parent

    I have been trying to find (none / 0) (#7)
    by Redbrow on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:21:27 PM EST
    The exact NYPD regulations regarding the chokehold directly from the primary source. There are many reports of it being banned or outlawed but no links to a direct source.

    If anyone has a link to some kind of NYPD regulations or rules of conduct please post it here.

    Parent

    Perhaps this will help (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:46:36 PM EST
    Have you had any experience (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:50:54 PM EST
    with the demonstrations?  

    Parent
    Our friends at FOX... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:30:21 AM EST
    we're very concerned about the dirty hippies disrupting the Christmas Tree lighting...police killing us no biggie, just don't f*ck with the Christmas Tree!  

    Probably why the demonstrators were allowed to shut down 12th Ave. last night without losing any pints of blood...far enough away from the precious tree and associated divine commerce.  

    Parent

    It's like how Christians are being persecuted (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    if they are criticized for public prayer after a touchdown, because according to some of their theologians the injunction against public prayer in the N.T. doesn't cover sporting events.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:26:01 PM EST
    I'm on the other coast and my city hasn't been doing too much in the way of protesting. I know Oakland was seeing some starting up again (still) tonight. I'm kinda liking the die-ins though . . . effective.

    Parent
    stray, I thought I read that (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by fishcamp on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 06:26:45 AM EST
    protesters shut down BART, for a while.  Did that happen, and where did they do it?

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    They shut down the West Oakland Bart station. It's the last one from that side of the bay into the city (SF).

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:28:59 PM EST
    i thought you were in NY.

    glad to see you.  I'm getting a little frightened.

    Parent

    I did not claim (none / 0) (#10)
    by Redbrow on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:24:52 PM EST
    They were from DK, only that DK brought them to my attention. The sources of the stats are their for anyone to verify or refute.

    What DK brought to your attention were (4.57 / 7) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    the distorted numbers Bill O'Reilly relies on to support his agenda; did you somehow think that if you referenced Daily Kos that we'd have an epiphany, be full-on Fox converts and kneel before the altar O'Reilly's built for himself?

    Please, I beg of you, stop insulting our intelligence.

    Parent

    Consider them refuted (4.40 / 5) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 10:28:39 PM EST
    J I just have to say (none / 0) (#22)
    by ZtoA on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:18:04 PM EST
    I so appreciate all your effort in hosting a world class blog. Seriously. You invite and tolerate debate - even with you, at least for  a few comments. Who else would do that? NO ONE.

    I can't always keep up with your blog, but I try.

    Oddly around 10 years ago I thought "well the art world is totally political but maybe lawyers or astrologers can see both sides" and then started to follow this site and one astrology site. Well the astrology site proved (to me) to be around 90% idiotic but that 10% is good and this site is around 90% great in my reading. So thanks again for your hosting, the challenges that brings to you that you over and over over come, and for the actual debate on issues.

    ZtoA, (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:27:49 PM EST
    Since Jeralyn doesn't always have time to read all the comments, especially in the Open Threads, she might appreciate it if you email her your first paragraph.  I'm sure that all bloggers appreciate thanks and kudos once in awhile.   ;-)
    If you go to the menu on the right and click on "email," her email will pop up.

    Parent
    :-) Ditto (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    not about the astrology stuff.

    Parent
    ha! I just thought (none / 0) (#69)
    by ZtoA on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:31:06 AM EST
    astrologers and lawyers might be able to see multiple sides at once. I was wrong. Not the first time I was wrong. Sadly, on this.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:45:00 PM EST
    in other news-----

    American Horror Story was amazing.  The best episode of the season so far.

    I've heard this season is great (none / 0) (#41)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 03, 2014 at 11:55:35 PM EST
    I stopped watching after season 2.  Maybe I'll get back into it but I'm a little squeamish with freaks. I take it Jessica Lange is great as always?

    Parent
    There were scenes (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:06:30 AM EST
    between Lang and Kathy Bates tonight that made me wet.

    Parent
    Cops Gone Wild HT Joe Cannon (none / 0) (#67)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 07:24:00 AM EST
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rao33ZYlrq4

    An hour and twenty minutes of cop violence via news.

    You are 8x more likely to die from cops than terror.

    There is a discussion of proper linking (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:39:02 AM EST
    for the site in the last open thread you should read.   This one might be Ok because it's short but in general you need to follow the instructions or the host will delete you.    It's all explained.   People will help if you need more.

    I think it the last open.   Or the one before

    Parent

    Photographic Evidence of the Blood (none / 0) (#102)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 10:36:51 AM EST
    Highlights of Grand Jury Evidence at the Daily Mail

    On this site are some of the few photos of markers 19 and 20.

    The only thing that the Grand Jury heard these witnesses say was that Brown turned around there and moved back toward Wilson from there -- but they said more than just that.

    Markers 19/20 say that Brown was likely shot from behind just short of there -- as Dr Baden testified to.  

    They also say that after turning around, Brown did put his hands out/up and then in.

    And then there is that picture of the ONLY blood found inside the Tahoe:

    Blood was only found on the driver's side door handle -- and nowhere else.

    And yet we were told for 3 months that Brown's  blood inside the Tahoe was proof that Brown was inside the Tahoe, assaulting Wilson there in a great struggle for the gun there.

    But it said nothing of the sort. All it said was that Wilson opened the door with  blood already on the inside of his right hand which he subsequently and quickly went back to the station and washed down the drain.

    And the police wonder why no one believes them.

    It's as if she doesn't really want to be ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by magster on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    President.

    The lip synching isn't even synched.

    I think that's awsum (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    Okay, (none / 0) (#183)
    by sj on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    I didn't watch/listen to the whole thing, but rather looked ahead to see what video to expect.

    And I'm wondering how this reflects on Hillary herself. Did she sponsor it? Did she appear on it (other than via photograph)? Did she approve it?

    What? Your title makes as little sense as the comments associated with your link.

    Unless I missed something?

    Parent

    I see three issues in the Garner case (none / 0) (#133)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    1.  Why was he arrested in the first place?  

    2.  Why did the cops continue to use aggressive force after he said "I can't breathe"?

    3.  Why do people resist arrest?  No one wants to talk about that but if you don't let cops handcuff you, all hell could break lose.

    I'm mostly interested in issue #2 but I don't have a good answer for what the cops should have done differently, once they went "all in" on the arrest.  

    A thought (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:07:17 PM EST
    I'm mostly interested in issue #2 but I don't have a good answer for what the cops should have done differently, once they went "all in" on the arrest.  

    They could have allowed him to breath when he was begging for his life.

    Parent

    ^This^ (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    I have asthma myself, and I am hugely sick and tired of all the people all over the web who have been saying, "Well, if he could talk enough to say he can't breathe, then he is breathing."
    From personal experience, I d@mned  well know that there is a brief period of time right before your airways totally close up when you have extreme difficulty breathing, you know exactly what's going to happen if you don't get to your inhaler in time, but you have just enough breath to gasp "I can't breathe!"  Or "Help!" Or "Get my inhaler!"
    And, you had better get your rescue inhaler PDQ when it gets this bad, or you won't even have enough breath left to use the d@mned inhaler.

    Parent
    Agreed. and, as has been pointed out, (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    the medical examiner determined that the chokehold, as well as compression to the chest, caused Mr. Garner's death and ruled it a homicide---not natural causes from diabetes, asthma, cardiac insufficiency, or overweight.

    Of course, any one, or a combination may affect the body's capabilities to overcome the violence to the body inflicted by Officer Daniel Pantaleo. As it was, Garner marshaled well his biologic defenses given the forces of the confrontation.

     Pantaleo seemed to acknowledge the damaging evidence in his grand jury testimony (according to his lawyer, Stuart London, NYT, Dec 4), by saying that he heard the repeated cries of "I can't breathe," and tried to disengage just as fast as he could.  But,  Pantaleo noted that Garner could still speak, hence, he could still breathe.  The account of Pantaleo that he attempted to release his hold on Garner and get off of him as quick as he could does not match the video where Pantaleo is in no hurry to get off.  Garner assuring himself, based on his testimony, that Garner could really breathe since he was able to cry out.  Garner was unable to say more.  Pantaleo dismissed Garner's distress.

    Garner's ability to "speak,"  in bursts of  "I can't breathe," was not necessarily due to an asthma attack , but to undulating  waves of arm pressure being applied to Garner's neck.  But, of course, even that ability to "speak" came to an end. Garner was not faking his inability to breathe.

    According to grand jury rules a witness can talk about what happened when called to to testify, but none of the other people who were present.  Officer Pantaleo's testimony, with all its questions, seems to be what swayed the jury.  A he said (officer), it said (video) debate. And he won.  (As did the other officers involved, who were complicit.)

    That assumes that  the video was actually shown to the grand jury (and, hopefully,  not just a description, with the argument that the video may be prejudicial.)  Although, Grand jury access to the video may be inferred from Officer Pantaleo's testimony that he knew he was being videotaped, telling them that he expects "everything to be filmed."   But, then, the proceedings are secret except for what Pantaleo reports of his testimony.  We have heard nothing from Dan Donovan.

    Parent

    How would they do that? (none / 0) (#152)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:23:44 PM EST
    Should all of the cops have gotten off Garner? Should they have tried to roll him over on his back?

    I'm pretty sure once cops start the forcible arrest process they are trained to continue until the suspect stops resiting.

    Parent

    How about they didn't gang tackle him (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:45:06 PM EST
    for no reason, other than the fact that Garner didn't like being accused of something he claims he wasn't doing.  Police were apparently on site because there had been a fight there, and Garner had helped to break it up.  Here's a guy who thinks he's done something good, and instead of being shown some appreciation for his efforts, gets jacked up by a bunch of cops and dies as a result of that interaction.

    I guess the question is, did he need to be arrested in the first place?  What heinous crime had he committed that day that should have called for that kind of action by police?  Is the fact that he was "known" to sell loose cigarettes enough justification for what the cops did?  

    Finally, there's a reason the chokehold was banned by the NYPD - and by other police departments: it's too dangerous, and people end up dead.  

    D'uh.

    Parent

    Cops seem to have a problem... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    disengaging when an altercation started on pathetically weak and petty circumstances...such as selling loosies or jaywalking or simple lip from a civilian who doesn't appreciate how they are being treated.

    I wonder what is wrong with the cops just walking away when the response is becoming far worse and far more dangerous than the alleged "crime".  Like in the Garner case, when he objects to being questioned and detained, why couldn't the cops just say "we'll let it go, have a nice day" and call it a day.  Of course not an option for cops responding to serious crimes, but I think it's an excellent option for petty crimes, in the name of peace and community relations.  I'm sure the good cops out there are doing this on the regular anyway, which is why they are good cops....maybe it should be an official protocol for police departments.  

    Shorter version...we need to put "broken windows" to bed, because it is getting people killed. And it was never as good at reducing crime as it was cracked up to be, imo, legalized abortion had much more to do with the drop in crime over the last 20 years than "broken windows".  And there is a high cost to "broken windows"...namely too many broken people.

    Parent

    I am pretty sure that's wrong (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    but if it's not its fvcked up.

    Parent
    Sorry guys (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    But my hobby interfered with my blogging yesterday.... Poker playing is more fun than trying to educate Mordiggan and Howdy ;-)  and I have only a few minutes this morning so I will go back to the days of yore when we didn't have nested comments, and just try to answer a few.

    Mordiggian writes:

    " Falsifiability would be to explain the observations of the glaciers melting, with the "fact" that the earth's temperature hasn't changed, according to you and some climate denialists."

    See what Reconstructionist wrote regarding "mutually exclusive." It is a very important point when analyzing things. But, since you don't think it important I suppose you believe that if I throttle by neighbor's rooster the sun won't come up.... I mean the rooster crows and the sun rises...the events are obviously connected. ;-)

    Also actually consider that it is a proven fact that dust increases snow melt.  Or have you never seen stove ashes thrown on a snow covered driveway?? Wait... We don't have stoves anymore, especially in SoCal.  But we do have deserts, high winds and volcanoes.  And that was one of the ways scientists proposed to fight global cooling.

    And there is lots of conflicted information on what is expanding and what is contracting.  We could prove each other "wrong" time and again. I mean:

    "This year, Antarctic sea ice has expanded its frigid reach with unprecedented speed, setting records in June and July. By the time spring punctures the long Antarctic night, 2014 stands a decent chance of topping 2012 and 2013, which each broke records of maximum total ice extent."

    LA Times

    And  "Falsifiability" has nothing to do with glacier melt. To simplify,  if a theory is incapable of being proved false, then it is not "testable" and that means it is a matter of faith (see religion).  Man made global warming - MMGW- fails to do that. Lots of anecdotal but no testable proof.  

    And Howdy, it goes back to '98. See Dr Jones' email of 7/5/05. Some say further. But no matter. Sixteen is a trend and easily seen on the link I gave you.

    Reconstructionist, exactly.  Ond one of the arguments of the hoaxers has been that the warming will release CO2 stored in sea water and soil and that will increase warming which will increase CO2 release, etc That's also a definition of how an oscillator works... in a closed system.  Of course the Earth isn't a closed system. Hold that thought...

    One of the supports of that theory, is that the amplification factor was around 35. A few years back a new study, this was published in Science Magazine, showed the number to be between 3.5 and 7. On a linear scale that is a large difference. On a log scale it is huge. Either way, that is an excellent explanation of why all the predictions have failed.

    A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

    A link to the evileeeeee Fox News

    And Nyshooter, it doesn't make any difference as to how many agree. Consensus isn't science.

    And lentniel ...  No, I don't think there is a conspiracy.  Just a lot of people trying to find a place at the trough of the $21 Billion the feds are spending this year. I mean, a few years ago a small town in SE TN tried to get fed money based on the claim their water supply had failed because of MMGW.

    But my basic motivation is that my background is engineering. And engineers don't accept scientific principles based on anecdotal evidence or faith.

    I mean Howdy showed us that Tuesday when he posted the Pope and his crowd saying the earth was the center of the universe..... while just one dude was saying otherwise.

    You folks have a nice day. Cards are in the air. My game awaits.


    I'm still waiting (none / 0) (#166)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:48:06 PM EST
    for Wilson's accusers to identify the specific witnesses they think sufficiently credible to establish "probable cause."  Obviously, witnesses who aver that Wilson blazed away at Brown as he fled, or deny that Brown turned and came back toward Wilson, or claim that Wilson coldly stood above his victim and "executed" him or, worse yet, told conflicting tales, simply won't do.  And where is the witness who can disprove Wilson's testimony that he instructed Brown to halt, and come no closer?

    A great deal of nonsense has been talked here.  Screwing up one's face and voicing the suspicion that a certain defense witness could not have seen what he claims to have seen doesn't get the job done.  The burden is on the prosecution to prove, through credible evidence, the existence of "probable cause."  The claim is even made that Wilson should be prosecuted because the forensic evidence doesn't prove his innocence, or because the witness testimony is such a contradictory mish-mash."  Some have even come by the notion that the prosecution has the right to cross-examine a defendant in trying to establish "probable cause."    

    The case against Wilson now rests largely on outlandish conspiracy theory, such as mystery bullet #13, or "faked" radio logs.  Hopeless.

    Dude (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    you are, like, two murders behind.  Please, try to keep up.

    Parent
    There wasn't probable cause (none / 0) (#173)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    The witnesses who might have testified against Wilson would not have been very credible.  The only witness who had anything negative to say about Wilson who seemed like he wasn't lying was Michael Brady but even his testimony wasn't going to hurt Wilson much at all.

    I'm not even sure Dorian Johnson would have testified had this gone to trial. I don't think the other "hands up" witnesses would have been compelling. I also think a prosecution would have had issues with putting Dr. Baden on the stand because of his involvement with Shawn Parcells.

    Parent

    Cosby/Polanski double standard (none / 0) (#169)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    Does it seem fair that Bill Cosby is having his career and reputation ruined while Roman Polanski continues to make films and even won an Academy Award?

    I don't think it's fair at all but I understand why it's happening.  It has nothing to do with race. Polanski's crime, and more importantly the media coverage of that crime, took place in the 70s.  Cosby's alleged crimes are only now getting big media coverage.  

    Today's media coverage and views on sexual assault are a lot different than they were in 1977.  Today, we have 24 hour cable news, the internet, and victims rights advocates like Gloria Alred and Wendy Murphy.  When someone is accused of rape, it's a big deal.  Back in 77, that wasn't the case.  Our country's views and values were a little different, especially in regards to underage sex.

    Polanski, basically, got the Borat reaction..... "Naughty, Naughty :)"

    Oh god (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Spoken like someone who wasn't at TL for the Polanski debate.

    Let's just say he sure didn't get a free pass around these parts.

    I will also say that as bad as the Polanski incident is, to my knowledge it is only the one incident.

    Cosby is at what now - 20something?

    Not to say 1 doesn't matter, but I think it's much easier to believe when it comes from 20+ people and it appears to be something he did often and with a more specific agenda.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    in Ps case I think there was one woman.  Who did not want him charged.  

    Am I wrong about that.  Don't feel like googling.

    Parent

    Well, if by "one woman" (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    you mean "one 13 y/o girl" then, sure.

    P was a big deal in TL's history. iirc, w/o him, we would have no Oculus.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    i remember.  Did she not say she didn't want him charged?

    Parent
    I don't know how she felt at the time (none / 0) (#179)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    She was 13 years old in 1977.  Recently, she said she forgives Polanski and doesn't want to be thought of as a victim.  The entire case was fascinating.

    If the crime happened today would he have been able to continue making films?  If so, would he get a standing ovation at the Academy Awards?

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:52:56 PM EST
    there are three different groups I think that are being discussed and they should be acknowledged.  The media, the public, and in these two cases, hollywood.

    In both cases it appears as though hollywood is full of people who are both willing to defend and help sexual predators.  I mean the Cosby allegations are full of stories of the complicit or supportive nature of everyone around Cosby to his behavior.  Now that the media is involved and it's become publicly so toxic, I think many of the once-defenders don't want to get involved now because some of the slime may rub off.

    In both cases, the public was generally not cool with it.  Even in France.

    The media meanwhile just loves a good trainwreck, and will push both sides to sell stories, but only if they think the value of the story is greater than the value they get from not telling the story (access to stars, etc...).

    Parent

    fwiw (none / 0) (#199)
    by CST on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    He will not get a standing ovation in person because if I recall correctly he's not coming to the U.S.  So in that case, actually, the authorities in the U.S. were not more lenient, so he fled to Europe.

    Parent
    MO Blue, good point. (none / 0) (#212)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    The only difference I see is that in this case the kid did not have a toy gun, and in the other cases the person shot did.

    I agree recon (none / 0) (#216)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    i have told stories about my family cops disabling their dash cams and the Garner case proves, if nothing else, they are not a solution.  But IMO if they help a small % of the time they are worth the minimal cost.  Hardly worth mentioning compared to the rest of the standard state or the art military gear.

    Donald...just because I spelled homicide wrong (none / 0) (#217)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 06:08:27 PM EST
    It doesn't make your legal inaccuracies any more accurate.

    What did Donald say (none / 0) (#218)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 06:16:27 PM EST
    that was inaccurate?

    Read it and weep. (none / 0) (#222)
    by Angel on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    Godwin's Law II (none / 0) (#226)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:26:16 PM EST
    There should be a second Godwin's Law that as an online discussion goes on, the probability that one of the discussants will be accused of being a troll will approach 1.

    Has anyone seen Nymphomanic? (none / 0) (#227)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 04, 2014 at 08:44:44 PM EST
    I'm a big Lars von Trier fan so I had to see these.... volumes 1 and 2.  I thought they were disgusting but funny as hell.  If nothing else it's worth it just for the Uma Thurman scene.

    My favorite von Trier film is Breaking the Waves.  Melancholia was also good.  Don't see Antichrist!