Department of Justice just shared it's review of the Cleveland PD:



Man, that sounds familiar!

Because in neither of those 2 cases do I feel that an officer should be charged, especially in the Garner incident that we have on tape, where the officers give him time to talk and then he refused to be arrested. Also if the officer didn't try to control Garner from the back, Garner would have smacked or punched of hit, one of the officers in front of him. As he had hid hands up and moving throughout the whole talk.

Yeah, we can certainly say he was about to strike an officer. Aces.

glad you have a better understand of the video now, than your ass backwards analysis before.

You're definitely Grill.

Another shooting in Phoenix, a cop vs a black. Ok, let's hear the outrage!

Sure, why not, another situation where a cop kills a weaponless citizen. Another situation where cops continue to escalate, the theme is just disturbing.

Same Old Story. All three cases involved the police trying to arrest a criminal, who assaulted the police and resisted arrest!

Would you ever be stupid enough to mouth off to a police officer, or to worse yet attack and fight one?

So I assume people have seen the 7 minute video after Garner is clearly dead and these cops know he's clearly dead and a good six and a half minutes into the video, Officer Chokehold waves at the camera like he's in the audience at The Today Show. What kind of fucking bullshit is that? There are two clearly distinct sides here, each with their own merits and shortcomings, but what the hell? You didn't handle it well, a man is dead and you have no remorse for what could have or should have been.

What scares me more is that someone actually believes this was handled properly.

This link I'm gonna present is old news but this happened practically right in my "backyard". This man ended up dying at the Moore Warren Theatre and what's interesting is that he didn't even initiate the whole episode. It was a argument between his wife and daughter when the officers stepped in and got involved and a few moments later after subduing him he is the one who ends up losing his life. One thing I'll point out is that there were no charges in this case, no protests, no super hyped up media coverage like we are being force fed with these other cases.

http://kfor.com/2014/04/02/homicide-med ... e-custody/

Why are the Feds talking about investigating the Garner case, as that case looks very straightforward without racial overtones.

But I would think the Brown Wilson one should have been, as that seems more questionable whether there were racial overtones.


One thing I agree with, Is that since DAs need to have a close relationship with cops for all the other cop cases, any cop killing should be done by a DA type, either set up on a state level from a different city or a federal one.

Garner did not assault the police.

Has anyone seen any of the protests or the "die ins" that are happening in public places, as they are happening in different cities acrossAmerica.

I wonder if any will try to disrupt the trip of Will and Kate to NYC? Like they tried to do at Rockerfeller Center.

And I like one of the families blasting Al Sharpton, telling him to leave them alone and out of his PR campaign.

most of the protest as been peaceful. Besides the ones right after the Brown announcement, the worst protest was people standing in the street. I don't consider that anything that bad. I am sure Gandhi did similar things with his nonviolent protest.

Not guilty until proven.

It looks like what has been widely reported is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately these news stories are more commonplace than thought but they shouldn't have been. Any death during arrest or in police custody should immediately warrant special attention.

Good news for the criminal element I guess, but what is the answer? Because it isn't working.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/07/eric-holde ... ious-bias/

The NYPD can expect to undergo the same kind of “de-biasing” training that Holder put departments in Seattle, New Orleans, St. Louis and several other cities through while investigating them for alleged civil rights violations.

Federal trainers teach cops not only to think twice about stopping or questioning suspects of color, but also to ignore signs of criminal behavior and threat indicators they’ve gleaned from years of street experience.

In a 2012 consent decree, Holder ordered Seattle to soften its use-of-force rules and train brass and rank and file alike in “bias-free” policing that recognizes and eliminates “implicit bias,” while disciplining any conduct tied to it.


The rules, which fully went into effect this year, have led to “de-policing.”The result? Crime is up in the Emerald City.

Since Holder stepped in, crime is up 13% overall in Seattle. But it’s not just minor infractions. It’s the biggies — aggravated assaults up 14%, car theft up a whopping 44% and murders up 21%.

More than 120 Seattle police officers, detectives and sergeants have filed a lawsuit against Holder, claiming his de-biasing order has jeopardized their own safety.

What is your answer become a police state? The cops can't be pulling people over and arresting people all the time. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Um that day has come and gone. People are quite comfortable with letting govt dictate nearly everything we do and have access to everything we consume. We are just existing without mobs running in the street for now.

Aren't you the type that likes Government passing lots of laws and regulations, as a well educated(tm) person? If we are going to ask for lots of laws and regs, govermemt is going to enforce them. And that means police and SWAT interacting with more and more people on a day-to-day basis and thus more chances for death.

Like stupid anti-smoking laws. Or old WW2 veterans trying to visit the WW2 Memorial during a shutdown.

It hasn't come completely, we still have the freedom of speech and the right to assemble. Some things are minor like it is very minor about things like seatbelts, label descriptions on food, little things that really don't infringe on us. Sure there are big stuff like the Patriot act that is very unsettling but we still aren't a police state like Nazi Germany or something were the people have no rights.

Just little laws like banning the sale of raw milk.
http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Dan-Allgyer-latest-target-in-FDA-war-on-raw-milk-2371056.php

you didn't read the article, it isn't being banned not really. That is a interstate commerce thing, raw milk is usually only used for cheese and such things. It isn't really safe to drink raw. They are just making sure it goes to making cheese and things and not for consumption.
Also about your other post, I am ok with regulations because it is a good thing for the safety of people like making sure we have clean water and clean food. In the 1800s, things were awful. Sometimes we have to protect the public from getting unclean food and water. What I don't want is people's rights being infringed. Where is someone's rights infringed on drinking bad milk? or spoiled food?

I did read the article and my point was about drawing weapons on a guy selling raw milk. And if someone wants to drink raw milk, that is their business but I guess some technocrat somewhere knows best, never mind the right to control your own property (the milk). Even Europeans are not as bad as us with raw milk laws.

The interstate commerce mention is only for purposes of granting the feds jurisdiction under the constitution.

Your going to an extreme, for a far reaching example. Nobody is saying all the time, or did it happen that way in the past. Granted there are going to be some on all sides that go to that extreme.

The article talked about how they are going overboard and letting activities and crimes go unchecked, which is leading to more and worse crimes. Which is wrong and absurd.

Anyway, don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. As the ones that are complaining the most, seem to be the criminals.