"If Witness #40 is a 'racist crackpot', then what of other witnesses, many black..."
Witness #40 has been identified, and she is a woman who has been busy posting racist comments on Facebook. This is not the first time she has tried to insert herself into a police investigation as a witness with a phoney story. She was dismissed by the police as a crackpot. So, what of the "other witnesses, many black"?
"Can they not be racist and trying to convict a white LEO..."
You are quite cavalier in throwing around damning accusations without a single, solitary shred of actual evidence. Then you accuse me of making stuff up.
"...or does racism only work in support of your theories and not mine?"
Yes it does, and here's why: the prosecutor should not have presented any witness, whether Black or Caucasian, whose story was not credible or was tainted by prejudice. The prosecutor in this case purposely allowed such witnesses to testify in order to confuse the Grand Jury.
Actually, Robert, it appears that he did let go while Garner was still able to speak as the it appears that Garner spoke a couple times after the hold was released. The biggest issues were Garner's physical condition (very obese, asthmatic, heart disease), positional asphyxia (tends to affect the obese when they are cuffed and laid prone), anxiety, and someone being on his chest. The Grand Jury was likely asked if Garner would have still died regardless of any hold on his neck and in this case he probably would have.
Oh, and BTW, this "kid" remembers Gates quite well.
Jeff Faltz. You said "brainwashed" about an officer but actually the process of brainwashing is complex and difficult. It is designed to break down a captive little by little. Many confuse the term with other more common conditioning techniques such as propaganda or the conditioning of recruits in basic training. Basic training is designed to have each man lose his "self" and then re-shape all recruits to begin to act as one. The individual is now the team thus orders are obeyed and confusion or fear is diminished in a battle situation. A police officer that freezes up or fails to act is obviously under-trained or not trained at all. Not conditioned to lead or follow or somehow isolated. Female black sergeant? Promoted without merit due to Equal Opportunity requirements? Government interfering with itself? Not a surprise. Fatal results as well? Again, not surprising. New slogan "Less government saves lives".
I digress. Ask that officer who killed if he was in fear for his life as a citizen must demonstrate if he kills in self-defense. A group of armed citizens attacking or subduing one person who dies will never convince a DA they all were in fear for their lives. They will go to trial for illegal homicide of some degree. Guaranteed.
I will add this to my prior comment in case the point was missed. LAPD sets precedent for all other police departments but not by design but none-the-less. The choke hold quote was a major news item so choke hold knowledge had to have been added to every police training manual. Police knew and still know the outcome of using this tactic. It stands to reason that this officer did as well. He was not fighting one on one for his life. He knew he could let go but he did not. The Grand Jury is and always has been a travesty and does not have to follow The Bill of Rights as do other courts and jurors. Too many out of control badge heavy sociopaths on the police force in every town USA. They do not put their lives on the line and are not heroes. The bottom line is The Bill of Rights that so many seem to think is outdated, is all we have to save ourselves. Exercise your Rights with vigilance and never talk to police, you have the Right to not self-incriminate which means shut up and wait for due process. Government has power but it does not have Rights, you do. Your Rights give you the power to limit government's power or take it away completely.
You kids won't remember this gem from 1982. LA Police Chief Darryl Gates discussing the controversial use of choke hold and deaths resulting from the use of:
(from wiki)His dismissive response to concerns about excessive force by police employing "choke holds." In 1982, Gates attributed several deaths of people held in choke holds to the theory that "blacks might be more likely to die from chokeholds because their arteries do not open as fast as they do on 'normal people.'"
LA Police Department had the first SWAT and was the first para-military police force. Now every large city police department is and has. My opinion is that this kind of police force is what escalates violence and leads to deadly confrontations. They want you to believe it is the other way around but really? police have armored vehicles because the bad guys had them first?! Violent incidents involving blacks are without a doubt rooted in racism. You can argue that point but not with me please. Police cannot be judge jury and executioner but they cannot second guess when guns are drawn. A choke hold is another matter and takes much longer than a bullet. The War on Drugs has also contributed a great deal to this insanity. Time to quit.
There is a saying among New York lawyers: If you have the facts, argue the facts; if you do not have the facts, argue the merits; and if you do not have the facts or the merits, then argue like hell! Mr. Faltz, you are now arguing like hell.
For the record, what started this off was not any claim on my part. You claimed that the Garner death could not possibly be considered racist because a Black, female sergeant did not intervene. I have merely demonstrated the fallacies in your simplistic argument.
"I wrote "may be" - Implying opinionation, conjecture and assumption at best. Again, can you prove your assertion? Anything in her record that would support this, or should we just assume you're right because you "care more" than others?
Q: If she's black, how can she be racist by allowing a fellow black citizen to be choked to death by a white cop?
Oh' wait, you've elaborated, "You find it totally unbelievable that the oppressed sometimes identify with the oppressor?"
So, this Sargeant (still have yet for you explain why this isn't a distictive position) is utterly deluded and uneducated, and has been so indoctrinated and brain-washed by law-enforcement ideology--primarily Caucasian, right?--that she is in lock-step with a department that is absolutely, undeniably racist in thought, word and deed?
I couldn't fabricate something this outlandish; thank you for providing it as "reason".
Why am I even engaging you here? No matter how you wish you could make these incidents indicative of covert--and overt--racism, the facts can't be gathered, assembled and/or spun to prove it, so I guess that leaves you on the outside, looking in. C'mon, wise up and I'll buy you some cocoa...or Kool-Aid...
"So, she's racist..." I wrote "may be". You do know the difference between "may be" and "is"? I also wrote she may be afraid for her job or just plain incompetent. As you do not question those two possibilities, I take it you agree.
"...against her own race?" You find it totally unbelievable that the oppressed sometimes identify with the oppressor? Yet you have the nerve to try to pass yourself off as someone knowledgeable about the subject if racism!
"I do not feel I need to prove the obvious."
Except, you totally do: those that make allegations thereby place the burden of proving them upon themselves. It's how jurisprudence works, and is structured as such for specific reasons. Not sure why you consider yourself above such logistics, but that's a matter for you to address and work out, not I.
The only thing patently obvious here is that there was/is insufficient evidence to prove either incident was racially motivated, and not enough to even indict either officer involved.
Irregardless of your, my or Ms. White's personal views, you two have no means to substantiate your opinions, so good luck in continuing to question that which has already been rendered legally resolved.
"she may indeed be a racist" - So, she's racist...against her own race? And I'M guilty of engaging in fanciful assumption? LOL!
"You were not there and you do not know what happened or what he was thinking" - And neither were you, did you, or do you, and that's why grand juries are convened; to sort through evidence and reach a conclusion, and neither of these found sufficient forensics to charge either officer.
If Witness #40 is a "racist crackpot", then what of other witnesses, many black, that obviously provided false recollections of the incident, in many cases, contradicting themselves or admitting that they weren't even at the scene? Can they not be racist and trying to convict a white LEO--this is a "racial issue" after all--or does racism only work in support of your theories and not mine?
The onus is upon you (and Ms. White) to prove these incidents are racist, as you've made the allegations. I'm disappointed that I have to explain how such things work, but you obviously have no knowledge about where the "burden of proof" lies in such matters; please research accordingly.
"Mr. K, you... still can't prove this was racially motivated."
You are laboring under some misapprehension. I am not trying to "prove this was racially motivated." I do not feel I need to prove the obvious.
What I am trying to do, is poke holes in your specious arguments that pretend to "prove" it was not racially motivated.
"So, we should automatically assume Wilson is lying..."
No, but neither should we mindlessly assume he is not lying.
"So he made this detail up?"
No, he was handed this "detail" on a silver platter by a crackpot racist, whose words were selectively leaked to the press long before the grand jury was convened.
"As for Witness #40; as he didn't pull the trigger, his racial mind-set is inconsequential..."
As Witness #40 is a racist crackpot, he would never have appeared in an actual trial. An actual jury would never have heard his allegations.
"...and unreliable testimony of other witnesses was a compelling reason why this case never went to trial."
Based on the testimony of Witness #40! The testimony of this racist crackpot was used to "prove" that the testimony of other witnesses was unreliable.
"There is no discrepancy..." Then why do you immediately proceed to try to explain the discrepancy away?
"...the police chief didn't know Wilson HAD in fact heard of the robbery..." Sorry, Mr. Faltz, but your fantasies, however poignant, carry no weight here. The police chief needs to speak for himself. You were not there and you do not know what happened or what he was thinking.
I believe it is far more likely that the chief spoke to the press after speaking to the officer. If he had not yet spoken to the officer he would have said so. If the topic had not come up in the briefing, then the chief would have said, "I don't know" instead of categorically saying the officer did not hear the broadcast.
But what I believe does not amount to a hill of beans either. The police chief never explained the discrepancy and he is the only one who can.
"If she sensed a racial motive, she had the power to command Pantaleo to cease, so is she a racist for allowing the level of force used to continue?"
First of all, regardless of race, she should have stopped everything as soon as the officer started using the illegal choke hold. Her failure to do so is at the very least a sign of her incompetence. Perhaps her incompetence also extends to a failure to recognize the situation as racist as well as lethal.
On the other hand, she may indeed be a racist. Or she may be afraid of losing her job. Or all of the above. Her actions, or rather the lack thereof, do not prove that Garner's death was not an act of racism.
“Mike Brown had commited a theft, assaulted Wilson, attempted to escape, then charged Wilson again after repeated warnings and multiple wounds."
These are the circumstances/facts of the matter, and no matter how you wish they were different or could be explained, they will not change, and led to no indictment being handed down by the GJ.
"Shortly after the shooting the police chief told the press that the officer had not heard of the theft before the incident. By the time the grand jury convened the officer testified that he had heard of the theft and had heard a detailed description of the suspect. No one has explained the discrepancy"
There is no discrepancy: the police chief didn't know Wilson HAD in fact heard of the robbery until Wilson was able to give a more detailed accounting of events and timeline. You say yourself that the PC made his comments "shortly" after the incident; too quickly, in hindsight, and he probably should have relied upon "no comment" instead, but there is no controversy here.
As for Witness #40; as he didn't pull the trigger, his racial mind-set is inconsequential, and unreliable testimony of other witnesses was a compelling reason why this case never went to trial.
So, we should automatically assume Wilson is lying about Brown's charging him because? He was correct about Brown assaulting him, correct about shooting him in the vehicle, correct about his (Brown's) attempt to escape and correct about only shooting him while facing forward, not in the back. So he made this detail up?
Mr. K, you have failed to provide additional insight into the circumstances of this incident, and still can't prove this was racially motivated, but by all means, keep at it, as I'm sure you'll become privy to currently unforeseen evidence in due time...
“Mike Brown had commited a theft, assaulted Wilson, attempted to escape, then charged Wilson again after repeated warnings and multiple wounds. His death wasn't due to pigmentation; it was from repeated denials to comply with what a uniformed, official member of law-enforcement commanded.”
Shortly after the shooting the police chief told the press that the officer had not heard of the theft before the incident. By the time the grand jury convened the officer testified that he had heard of the theft and had heard a detailed description of the suspect. No one has explained the discrepancy.
The one and only witness to testify to seeing Brown charge at the officer, is identified in documents as Witness #40. This one statement of his was first leaked to the public before the grand jury was convened, and has been broadcast continually since then. Unfortunately, his story in its entirety proved to be too inconsistent to be credible. Witness #40 also admitted to federal investigators that he was in the habit of referring to Blacks as “f***-ing n****rs”.
And, Mr. K, you-and Ms. White--seem to have read a racial component into the Pantaleo/Garner case that simply doesn't exist.
Again, if a black supervisor could order white officers to alter their methods of subduing a black suspect, but didn't, how can the incident be classified as racist?
If she sensed a racial motive, she had the power to command Pantaleo to cease, so is she a racist for allowing the level of force used to continue?
Radio guy, you seem to have read much into my single sentence that is not there. I agree with Dave's and Odin's analyses. I am trying to add another argument against the idea of shooting to wound.
I never said "killing someone shields a cop from being sued." I said that purposely shooting to wound a suspect leaves a cop open to being sued. What's worse is that even if the suspect is ultimately found guilty of the crime for which he was being arrested, he still has legal standing to sue the cop, and possibly the entire department, for damages and suffering from the wound.
AS always, Taxi Driver insights are thorough and often gut-wrenching as well as excellent, phrase-driven images that capture ones imagination and/or heart. Always look forward to what will be discovered by this columnist next week!
All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation