Use of force

[Deepbluediver]

They didn't have to do anything. As noted, they forced him into submission with an against policy chokehold when he was standing around doing nothing. Then he lay there slowly dying and surrendered.

They where trying to arrest him- what do you want them to do? Say "hey we're here to arrest you? No? You're not cool with that? Ok, we'll just walk away then, have a good day."
Also, once you're on the ground in handcuffs you don't really get credit for "surrendering". From the videos I've seen, Eric Garner never stopped resisting until he was physical incapable of doing so.

This is the sort of attitude that kills people. If you aren't perfectly respectful to police, or even if you are and they fuck up then people like you don't care and will fully support them murdering a person for very poor reasons.

I have never supported that position- if you've read any of the comments between my reply to you and now I've said repeatedly that I support investigating all incidents of excessive force fully, and when necessary charging police criminally.

And second, when has mouthing off to the police or arguing or fighting with them EVER resulted in a preferable situation? Nod your head, do what they ask, and if you've got a problem with it, get a lawyer or file a complaint in a way that doesn't result in violent conflict. The attitude of "the police are evil so I should fight them" to me sounds like the guy claiming he doesn't wear a seatbelt because he's worried about getting stuck in his car and drowning or burning or something.
It's totally the wrong reaction to have.

They might as well have pushed him to his knees in the streets and executed him by gunshoot. What he did was no excuse to murder him.

No, because that would have involved intent to kill. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer intended to kill Eric Garner?

So about 15 times the death rate.

I'd say that's more of an argument for additional training and safety in other industries, not less in police work.

It's a bit like a person with a gun creeping through dark alleys hoping someone gives them a chance to show off their self defense training.

Even if we took the highest total estimate of civilians-killed-by-cops (roughly 1,000 per year) and compared it to the total number of police-civilian interactions (~70 million according to one source) then the deaths-by-cop seem to be a tiny fraction of the whole.

Are some cops racist bullies? Yes, probably. Should we cripple all cop's ability to keep themselves safe and deal with criminals because of it? No.

So basically, they can kill someone and if they do anything, like being slightly offensive or be the subject of a mistake, the cop will get away with it.

No, nor should they. But neither does every cop who fires his gun or has to physically subdue a suspect subject to the same standards of suspicion or criminality as regular citizen.

Choke holds are violent.

Yes...what tactic isn't?

Michael Brown attacked a cop; definitely not non-violent.

Debatable, and not examined at all in an appropriate legal setting.

The grand jury heard just about every piece of testimony they could, examined the autopsy report, and apparently even listened to an expert on gunshot-wound analysis. What more did you want them to do?

There is no law that you have to shoot someone in the back or chase after them if they flee. The police have discretion.

Yes, they do, and they exercise it frequently. That's why there are very few instances that I've heard or where a non-violent offender is shot while fleeing police.
Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which shooting someone while they are fleeing is the preferable option to letting them go?

Probably less, escalating violence tends to cause fights.

So police should always wait for a suspect to do something first, before they respond only with equal force?

Standing around is apparently fighting the police.

No, but resisting arrest is.

What if they think "the police are violent scumbags, I really need to step up my game to compete."

Then the problem lies with them.

There are situations in which a police-force may become so corrupt that violent revolution is only solution, though at that point you're probably overthrowing the whole government anyway. However that is not the situation in the United States, and even playing the odds, people who cooperate with the police have a much better chance of a favorable outcome than those who do not.

[crayzz]

And second, you keep referring to Eric Garner as "choked to death".

Because he was. That's really without question at this point. I don't much care if the officer intended it: it's on him if his reckless actions lead to another's death, especially if he keeps such a level of force applied after the suspect had already been subdued.

In the pictures I saw, the "BB gun" looked highly realistic- how is a a cop supposed to know the difference? Are you suggesting that the police wait to fire until someone starts shooting at them first?

Go back to the source, to the part where dispatch was told that the gun might be fake. Then consider that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be shooting at 12 year olds for not immediately complying when they've given us no reason to think they'll be violent.

You're gonna have to provide me with a link for that, but my first though is- if they didn't know it was his house, how did they know he wasn't going to grab a hostage, and if they DID know it was his house, how did they know he wasn't going to grab a weapon?

I did above: "We have 12 year olds being shot for having an unmarked BB gun. From the popehat link above, the police have shot hostages, bystanders, a guy just hanging out in his apartment armed with a wallet, and a unarmed teen fleeing into his own apartment."

Every single case I've referenced has been sourced.

How come this time he fought back? Why was his choice to resist arrest any less of a factor in his death than the officers choice of tactics to subdue him?

Specifically what action did Garner take that constituted "fighting back?" I saw him say "don't touch me." I saw him take a step back. I didn't see any action that could even remotely constitute "fighting."

(If he had really been arrested many times without violence, that should be a sign that this man is not violent and that pre-emptive violence is not justified.)

As you've pointed out- police do not have a blank check to commit whatever acts of violence they want. Nor do I support cases where they are obviously excessive in their response.

No, that's true. They're not allowed to beat up 15 year olds on camera, or assault handcuffed men in wheel chairs on camera. The rest, including punching a pregnant woman in the back of the head and then slamming her onto the ground for talking back, and throwing handcuffed drunk women into concrete slabs, then filing a false report about it, is pretty much A-OK.

Obviously this standard is not absolute, but what is the alternative? Exactly how much risk do police officers have to accept before they are allowed to respond with a certain amount of force?

Where does your standard end? So far, it has lead to the dismissal of cases where the police have pre-emptively murdered unarmed teenagers, thrown flashbangs at infants, and broken eye sockets of already subdued women.

The police should take some risk before resorting to fatal violence. If the guy is just standing there, don't choke him to death, even if doing so is safest for you. Don't throw explosive weaponry, not even flash bangs, in bedrooms when you don't know what is in there. You have a goddamn responsibility to civilians, even if they don't take kindly to being arrested.

I could just as easily say "Don't argue with the police or resist arrest either". How come more people don't do that?

I don't fucking care. Resisting arrest is not a justification for killing someone. Fleeing after being blinded is not a justification for being shot in the back. Kicking your shoes at an officer is not a justification for being beaten to the ground by someone twice your size. The responsibility of the police to act professional, and not like brainless thugs acting violent at the slightest challenge to their authority, exists independent of someone saying "don't touch me."

EDIT

Think about that argument, for a second. You're asking why people aren't focusing on the guy just standing there, but instead focusing on the people who have killed unarmed teens. One of those seem blatantly and extensively more problematic to me at first glance. In depth analysis doesn't paint a better picture.

[Deepbluediver]

Go back to the source, to the part where dispatch was told that the gun might be fake. Then consider that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be shooting at 12 year olds for not immediately complying when they've given us no reason to think they'll be violent.

This is directly from the article you linked:

Tamir Rice was shot just moments after police arrived at the park near his house after a 911 caller informed authorities that the boy had a gun but cautioned it could be a fake. That information wasn't transmitted to responding police

You seem to think that police should wait until they are being fired at to shoot back. Frankly, I think that's a recipe for more dead cops and bystanders.

I did above: "We have 12 year olds being shot for having an unmarked BB gun. From the popehat link above, the police have shot hostages, bystanders, a guy just hanging out in his apartment armed with a wallet, and a unarmed teen fleeing into his own apartment."

Every single case I've referenced has been sourced.

Ok, you mentioned it more than once, and I was looking at the part that didn't have the link.
When I read the description of the events in the link, the police did not shoot him while he was fleeing, it said the officer in question pursued the subject and confronted him in the bathroom of his home.
After reading all the details provided, I would agree that this appears to be case of excessive force, but I don't have the full investigation available to me. If the police confronted him outside and his first response was to run, then it seems entirely reasonable to me that they chased him.

Specifically what action did Garner take that constituted "fighting back?" I saw him say "don't touch me." I saw him take a step back. I didn't see any action that could even remotely constitute "fighting."
If he had really been arrested many times without violence, that should be a sign that this man is not violent and that pre-emptive violence is not justified.

Fine, maybe "fighting" is to strong a word, depending on you define it. But he's been refusing to be arrested for however long the police where talking to him, and then when they go to cuff him he pulls his hands away and keep them up so he can't be cuffed. When the police attempt to drag him down to the ground he struggles and even when he's on all fours he continues to crawl around, dragging the cops with him. It was hardly like he just gave up.

As you've pointed out- police do not have a blank check to commit whatever acts of violence they want. Nor do I support cases where they are obviously excessive in their response.

No, that's true. They're not allowed to beat up 15 year olds on camera, or assault handcuffed men in wheel chairs on camera. The rest, including punching a pregnant woman in the back of the head and then slamming her onto the ground for talking back, and throwing handcuffed drunk women into concrete slabs, then filing a false report about it, is pretty much A-OK.

It's not OK, and I have never said it should be. Please quote me where I did.

Obviously this standard is not absolute, but what is the alternative? Exactly how much risk do police officers have to accept before they are allowed to respond with a certain amount of force?

Where does your standard end? So far, it has lead to the dismissal of cases where the police have pre-emptively murdered unarmed teenagers, thrown flashbangs at infants, and broken eye sockets of already subdued women.

My standard is what I believe to be the current standard- that police should use the best tactics they are trained for with the minimum violence necessary to ensure a reasonable degree of the officer's safety.

Not every cop walks away from charges of excessive force.

The police should take some risk before resorting to fatal violence.

I could argue that the police are always at risk. Again, I'll ask, have you ever physically fought with anyone?

If the guy is just standing there, don't choke him to death, even if doing so is safest for you.

If the police say you are under arrest, don't resist.

Don't throw explosive weaponry, not even flash bangs, in bedrooms when you don't know what is in there.

Ok, supposing that police have to enter a room that they have not themselves inspected the inside of in the last 30 seconds, what is the best tactic then? I'm all for police being cautious and limiting the use of SWAT or para-military tactics, but one of the reason police deaths are so low is because they don't give the bad guys a chance to shoot them first.
A cursory inspection of the number on this website (http://www.odmp.org/search/year) seems to indicate that there has been a general decline in deaths over the past few decades. I'd argue that's a good thing.

You have a goddamn responsibility to civilians, even if they don't take kindly to being arrested.

Yes, and citizens have an obligation to not break the law and to cooperate with the police. When you don't play by the rules, you forfit certain rights and expectations.

The cases you've mentioned where people cooperated fully and where either beaten or framed by police are the ones I consider most egregious and I can't understand why they don't get prosecuted. In any case where someone was/is breaking the law and does not cooperate with police I have much less sympathy.

If you don't like, then don't change the law, but don't say the law shouldn't be enforced.

Resisting arrest is not a justification for killing someone. Fleeing after being blinded is not a justification for being shot in the back. Kicking your shoes at an officer is not a justification for being beaten to the ground by someone twice your size. The responsibility of the police to act professional, and not like brainless thugs acting violent at the slightest challenge to their authority, exists independent of someone saying "don't touch me."

Most of these I don't disagree with you, except that if you violently resist arrest and you die because of your own actions, I don't hold the police responsible for that.

Think about that argument, for a second. You're asking why people aren't focusing on the guy just standing there, but instead focusing on the people who have killed unarmed teens. One of those seem blatantly and extensively more problematic to me at first glance. In depth analysis doesn't paint a better picture.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here- I know we've wandered quite far from the original topic, but of the cases we've discussed, there have been quite a few that I've agreed with you where the police used excessive force or simply beat a suspect in custody. We've both provided links where police officers where disciplined or punished for their actions.

What I'm asking people to focus on is an acceptable evaluation of risk and response. You seemed to be convinced that police have to be under actual attack before they can respond with any kind of equivalent force.

[JustinReilly]

DBD - Arguing with cops and resisting arrest is pretty much never going to help you, you're right. But a lot of the time it's going to be the instinctive reaction, requiring special effort to stop. You know, fight and flight and all that. It should be expected, not an excuse to violate procedure.

Y'all were talking about grand juries a while back. Well, here in Texas we have some of the indictingest grand juries around. They're famous for being little more than rubber stamps for the district attorneys' offices. Strangely, however, there's one class of offender that they just have a dickens of a time securing an indictment against.

[vvn]

Overall, the statistics indicate that, despite its dangerous image, police work isn't among the most hazardous jobs in the U.S. The death totals work out to about 1.56 per every 100,000 sworn federal, state and local officers across the country — less than half the rate of 3.5 per 100,000 for U.S. workers in all jobs in 2011, the last year for which complete figures were available from the

So about 15 times the death rate.

So, Police work is less than half as dangerous as the "average job?" Interesting. But, I don't see where your 15 times comes from? Wouldn't it be 44% of the death rate? What am I getting wrong?

-----------

There are about 120 000 police officers in the US: about 0.9 deaths per thousand officers. Coal mining is actually better, according to your source (0.16 deaths per thousand, though I suspect they're including more workers than they should; wikipedia only reports 83 000 miners, while your source reports 120 000). Trash collectors? According to your own source, 90 deaths per 100 000, or 0.9 deaths per thousand, the same as police officers, and actually way behind fishing (1.78 deaths per 1000) and logging (1.56 deaths per thousand), again per your own source.

More telling, to me, are the ways police officers die in duty: take out deaths that don't have anything to do with criminals, and you're left with 0.53 deaths per thousand. Most of that is from gunfire.

First, I have to point out that the 0.9/100 quoted here is two orders of magnitude different than the 1.56/100,000 quoted above. That's a lot of difference.

Second, 0.9 - 0.53 = 0.37/1000 that have to do with criminals. Ok. But, most of the other 0.53 are gunshot? So, more officers die from gunshots away from criminals than anything to do with criminals? What is that, training accidents?

Again, what am I missing?

--------------
A couple nights ago there was a report on the news of someone shot by police in Hollywood. The tone of the report was that it was totally justified. Basically because the perp had a "lethal weapon." They showed pictures of a Swiss Army knife. They also showed pictures of about a dozen police surrounding the guy from a distance. And, eyewitness testimony that did not have anyone saying he was brandishing the knife. (The line from Lethal Weapon keeps going through my head. "See, shoot him in the leg, now we can question him.") But, he is dead now. And, the press thinks that is just fine.
Same night, a few minutes later another news story came on. Apparently a dog attacked a cop. The dog bit the cop, and sent him to the hospital. The cop shot the dog. The tone of this report was totally different. It was questioning the validity of shooting the dog. Suggesting an investigation might occur.
So, dog with teeth in you = don't shoot. Human being with pocket knife 10 feet away = kill him. Such is our press.

On the Brown situation; the only witness testimony I have seen on TV is the interview with the cop. The interviewer was clearly on his side, and even suggested some things in the cops favor. The only conflicting opinions were people that were many hearsay steps from what happened. If I was predisposed to be anti Brown, this would have incensed me. But, if all I have to go on is this one sided presentation, it sounds justified. Again, I think the press could do better.

---------------
The military is given rules of engagement when dealing with known hostile forces. These rules commonly do not allow them to shoot first. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask our police to have an equal respect for the safety of Ame, not more.rican citizens. Police do need to protect themselves. But, if their training stresses that over EVERYTHING ELSE, I think that is a mistake. I think there are elements of civilization that constitute a higher standard than the personal safety of the people paid to go into harms way. This is true in the military, and should be true in the Police. I can't say where that line should be drawn, but I think the conversation should occur. I don't want to live in fear of the police. I want to believe they are here to help. They should be held to a higher standard than a normal citizen. They are paid and trained to do the job. They should get less leeway when faced with these situations, not more.

[Deepbluediver]

DBD - Arguing with cops and resisting arrest is pretty much never going to help you, you're right. But a lot of the time it's going to be the instinctive reaction, requiring special effort to stop. You know, fight and flight and all that. It should be expected, not an excuse to violate procedure.

Ok, I think I kinda see what you are saying here, but is it really that special? I think that the vast majority of police-civilian interactions, and even the majority of arrests, end without violent confrontation.
And, if a cop believes his subject to be operating under a fight-or-flight instinct, wouldn't that incline him to expect more violent than normal than normal, not less?

I mean, here's the train of logic as I see it-
1) I'm facing five cops, any logical person would give up.
2) but I'm not logical
3) and since I can't outrun 5 cops, I'll have to fight them

In fact, you could probably even say that some of the example of excessive force are precisely BECAUSE cops are anticipating a fight.
And if you expect it, what do you do? If you EXPECT someone to hurt you, wouldn't you take action to prevent that?

Y'all were talking about grand juries a while back. Well, here in Texas we have some of the indictingest grand juries around. They're famous for being little more than rubber stamps for the district attorneys' offices. Strangely, however, there's one class of offender that they just have a dickens of a time securing an indictment against.

If I wanted to, I could claim that obviously this means all cops are so blindingly innocent that even a system biased against the defendant can't find them guilty....but I know that would be a spurious argument.

I've actually been thinking about the other parts of our criminal-justice system lately, but we should probably start another thread for that topic. If I don't get to it first in the next couple of days feel free to take the lead, and I'll join in somewhere down the line.

So, Police work is less than half as dangerous as the "average job?" Interesting. But, I don't see where your 15 times comes from? Wouldn't it be 44% of the death rate? What am I getting wrong?

I don't want to speak for crayzz, but I think he meant one of the other jobs mentioned (garbage collection, maybe) was 15 times as dangerous as police work. That's how I interpreted it.

[crayzz]

They're famous for being little more than rubber stamps for the district attorneys' offices. Strangely, however, there's one class of offender that they just have a dickens of a time securing an indictment against.

Is it just me, or does the latter follow directly from the former?

I'll make this quick, because I really should be focusing on exams.

Most of these I don't disagree with you, except that if you violently resist arrest and you die because of your own actions, I don't hold the police responsible for that.

Who, out of all the cases I've brought forth, has violently resisted? Micheal Brown, maybe. Not Garner, we have him on video: he commited no violence. Not Boyd: he was shot in back after being blinded and trying to flee. Not the woman whose eye socket was broken: she was already cuffed. Not the teen who fled into his own home; not the 12 year old who wasn't given time to comply before being shot; not the hostage, who was fleeing his attacker: not the 9 bystanders who were, by definition, not involved; not the woman arrested for drunk driving, as she was already cuffed and was pushed from behind. So who? How many of those cases yielded any sort of reprimand? You brought up two, and I brought up two. 4 out of how many?

We actually have hard numbers on this. In Chicago: "Between 2002 and 2004, civilians filed 10,149 complaints of excessive force, illegal searches, racial abuse, sexual abuse, and false arrests. We limited the disciplinary data set to those five categories, because they encompass the most serious forms of civilian abuse and correspond to the types of abuse endured by Diane. Only 19 of the 10,149 complaints led to a suspension of a week or more."

Their window is very low: a week suspension is barely a slap on the hand. Yet, only 19 complaints yielded even that low of a response. From such data, one might conclude that police abuse is so far from normal that it's beyond 3 standard deviations of police behaviour, assuming a normal distribution. Does anyone seriously believe that the numbers are that low? If not, a serious overhaul has to be made regarding the oversight of american LEOs.

Regarding the investigations:

"We found that standard CPD police abuse investigations violate virtually every canon of professional investigation.
—
These are not hypothetical or aberrational practices. These are CPD’s standard procedures when it comes to investigating police misconduct. In more than 85% of the CPD police abuse investigations analyzed, the accused officer was never even interviewed. In many of the remaining 15% of the investigations, the Department determined that the complaint was “not sustained” without ever requesting any information from any of the officers on the scene."

That sure looks like a consistent refusal to investigate.

First, I have to point out that the 0.9/100 quoted here is two orders of magnitude different than the 1.56/100,000 quoted above. That's a lot of difference.[1]

Second, 0.9 - 0.53 = 0.37/1000 that have to do with criminals.[2] Ok. But, most of the other 0.53 are gunshot? So, more officers die from gunshots away from criminals than anything to do with criminals? What is that, training accidents?

Again, what am I missing?

1) I don't know what the difference is. I suspect we're counting different populations. Nepene's source, for instance, seems to include correctional officers, and only about 7 of whom die per year.

2) No, the 0.53 are what remains after we remove the deaths that don't have anything to do with criminals (car accidents, heart attacks, a couple other sets of deaths, but mostly car accidents and heart attacks; car accidents we can remove since the data differentiates between a car accident, vehicular assault, and those killed while in pursuit).

In fact, you could probably even say that some of the example of excessive force are precisely BECAUSE cops are anticipating a fight.
And if you expect it, what do you do? If you EXPECT someone to hurt you, wouldn't you take action to prevent that?

Isn't that part of the problem? The police's hair trigger willingness to engage in violence brings violence to the table before there's any actual reason to?

That ended up being longer than I expected.

EDIT

And, if a cop believes his subject to be operating under a fight-or-flight instinct, wouldn't that incline him to expect more violent than normal than normal, not less?

I just want to note that you expect people to suppress their instinct against being arrested, but are presenting presumption of violence before any is evident as inherently reasonable. That seems to place the trained para-military officers at a much lower standard than the people who don't want to be arrested.

[Deepbluediver]

Who, out of all the cases I've brought forth, has violently resisted? Micheal Brown, maybe. Not Garner, we have him on video: he commited no violence. Not Boyd: he was shot in back after being blinded and trying to flee. Not the woman whose eye socket was broken: she was already cuffed. Not the teen who fled into his own home; not the 12 year old who wasn't given time to comply before being shot; not the hostage, who was fleeing his attacker: not the 9 bystanders who were, by definition, not involved; not the woman arrested for drunk driving, as she was already cuffed and was pushed from behind. So who? How many of those cases yielded any sort of reprimand? You brought up two, and I brought up two. 4 out of how many?

You keep raising points that I already said I agree with, except for Eric Garner.

And while I don't think the Eric Garner deserver to die, and I wish he hadn't, his own actions drastically increased the chances of his death or injury.

That sure looks like a consistent refusal to investigate.

Yes, it does sound bad. I've never supported a "self-regulatory" system, whether it's for police work, the oil industry, or anything else.

But who then would you have investigate? Should we create an entire department who's sole duty is to investigate the police or FBI? Who do you hire to staff it with the necessary experience and qualifications?
I'm not trying to be flippant here, I'm honestly asking, because I'm one of those people who like to talk about potential solutions instead of just pointing out problems.

No, the 0.53 are what remains after we remove the deaths that don't have anything to do with criminals (car accidents, heart attacks, a couple other sets of deaths, but mostly car accidents and heart attacks; car accidents we can remove since the data differentiates between a car accident, vehicular assault, and those killed while in pursuit).

Ok, so just out of curiosity, if a cop suffered a heart-attack because he was wrestling with a suspect, trying to arrest him, would you consider that to be the suspect's fault? Should he be culpable in this case?

I just want to note that you expect people to suppress their instinct against being arrested, but are presenting presumption of violence before any is evident as inherently reasonable. That seems to place the trained para-military officers at a much lower standard than the people who don't want to be arrested.

In the previous post I was mainly describing what I anticipated happening- ideally both parties would suppress their instincts to kill or maim each other.
In the majority of arrests, this is what happens and things go fine.

I really should be focusing on exams.

Good luck.

[Nepene]

They where trying to arrest him- what do you want them to do? Say "hey we're here to arrest you? No? You're not cool with that? Ok, we'll just walk away then, have a good day."

For a start they shouldn't be opening with "Hey we're here to arrest you." They should actually try to investigate the crime. They suspected him of selling cigarettes. They should have asked him "Hey, are you selling illegal cigarettes." He said no irl. They should then consider their rights. Suppose, say, they want to search him for cigarettes and they have the right. They should inform him "We suspect you of having illegal cigarettes and so we intend to search you in such and such a way. Do you have anything to declare before we start? Could you stand with your hands up to make it easier please?" Though they should only do this if they have probable cause. If he seems especially agitated then they can spend a little time standing at an appropriate distance away from him, not touching him, not agitating him, perhaps make sure you have a supervisor or some expert on scene. If they lack probable cause they should just walk away, or make a 'tactical disengagement' if that helps save their egos. They should advance backwards.

Now, before when people noted clear and good police procedures to you you didn't really reply. Are you going to dismiss this one too? Do you think saying "We're going to arrest you" *chokehold* is better than the above?

Also, once you're on the ground in handcuffs you don't really get credit for "surrendering". From the videos I've seen, Eric Garner never stopped resisting until he was physical incapable of doing so.

You need credit for surrendering? Just lying there still saying "I can't breathe" and not resisting isn't enough?

I have never supported that position- if you've read any of the comments between my reply to you and now I've said repeatedly that I support investigating all incidents of excessive force fully, and when necessary charging police criminally.

Yes, and you noted your judgement criteria, which make it largely impossible to ever get an indictment because they defer so strongly to the police. So investigating the police is moot, they have the benefit of the doubt.

And second, when has mouthing off to the police or arguing or fighting with them EVER resulted in a preferable situation? Nod your head, do what they ask, and if you've got a problem with it, get a lawyer or file a complaint in a way that doesn't result in violent conflict. The attitude of "the police are evil so I should fight them" to me sounds like the guy claiming he doesn't wear a seatbelt because he's worried about getting stuck in his car and drowning or burning or something.
It's totally the wrong reaction to have.

The police are not executioners. Someone mouthing out to them shouldn't be an excuse for them to kill him. If they do so, they should face criminal charges. They shouldn't arrest people unless they have probable cause. You should be able to mouth off to anyone and expect the law to punish people if they are violent to you due to freedom of speech.

No, because that would have involved intent to kill. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer intended to kill Eric Garner?

Eric Garner said he couldn't breathe and the officer continued to hold him in a choke hold.

Then he ran out of breathe and died. So yes, I can.

I'd say that's more of an argument for additional training and safety in other industries, not less in police work.

I'm more noting that since police work is extremely safe it's fine them taking on a little extra danger. I mean, soldiers have much clearer rules of engagement and their job is much more dangerous. They actually have to wait till people fire at them before firing back.

Even if we took the highest total estimate of civilians-killed-by-cops (roughly 1,000 per year) and compared it to the total number of police-civilian interactions (~70 million according to one source) then the deaths-by-cop seem to be a tiny fraction of the whole.

It's somewhat an issue that the police don't keep good official records on this matter, so the highest estimate is a civilian one based on news reports. The actual death rate could easily be much higher, including stories that didn't make it to the news. This is part of why data gathering is important.

Are some cops racist bullies? Yes, probably. Should we cripple all cop's ability to keep themselves safe and deal with criminals because of it? No.

As I noted above, there's another way to deal with non violent criminals or people who they want to harass because they're black.

Yes...what tactic isn't?

Talking to non violent people.

The grand jury heard just about every piece of testimony they could, examined the autopsy report, and apparently even listened to an expert on gunshot-wound analysis. What more did you want them to do?

Serve the actual purpose of the indictment grand jury and be accurately told what they are trying to do, work out if there is probable cause for a trial, and not spammed with evidence that isn't relevant to this purpose and isn't normal to get an indictment.

Yes, they do, and they exercise it frequently. That's why there are very few instances that I've heard or where a non-violent offender is shot while fleeing police.
Are you claiming that there is no circumstance in which shooting someone while they are fleeing is the preferable option to letting them go?

I don't believe you addressed the cases where the police shot non violent people in the back. Do so.

So police should always wait for a suspect to do something first, before they respond only with equal force?

They should have rules of engagement like the military.

Then the problem lies with them.

So you don't actually want to make criminals less dangerous? You're ok if they do become more dangerous due to the police? Because the 'problem lies with them'?

[RyukaTana]

No, because that would have involved intent to kill. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officer intended to kill Eric Garner?

Eric Garner said he couldn't breathe and the officer continued to hold him in a choke hold.

Then he ran out of breathe and died. So yes, I can.

I support most of your and crayzz's argument here, and I'm rather surprised to do so over dbd, but no... This does not prove intent to kill. It can easily be said the cop believed the Garner was simply trying to get the cop off him by any means possible. What this proves is negligence or incompetence, and excessive force in using the chokehold in the first place, none of which fall under 'intent to kill'.

If I go to shoot you in the leg to disable you, and aim too high and hit something vital or a major artery and you die, then all the actions I took were ones I could reasonably have seen leading to your death, but I didn't intend to kill you.