Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what they were worried about :smack:
Learn to fucking read.
Learn to fucking think.
I can think, that’s why I’m not swallowing the ridiculous party line that the police are always wrong, and that violent, drugged up criminals aren’t a risk to anyone.
But maybe you can help me with something I’m struggling to think about. There’s a violent, drugged up criminal who’s been hand and leg cuffed, but is still violent and resisting. How best should the police restrain him, at minimal risk to either him or the officers? The only answer anyone’s come up with so far is “don’t bother, just leave him there”, which is ridiculous.
I don’t think they’re always in the wrong. So far, to you, they’ve always been in the right however. So allow me to doubt your ability to think critically.
You still haven’t explained, precisely, what the point of further restraining him would be. He’s shackled. He’s not going anywhere, police sitting on him or not. He’s certainly not threatening anybody in this position.
Furthermore, the arrest itself seems to have been effected without much of a struggle : the guy put his hands up, the cops didn’t have to fire a taser at him. Where you’re pulling the “violent and resisting” from, I have no idea. You seem to be assuming that, because four cops crushed him, he musta been. Why would you make that assumption ?
And was he resisting? Or trying to breathe? I imagine it may be a natural impulse as your being suffocated to death to try to affect a change in the situation.
This is the false claim you keep repeating. You can’t be certain of that, you are simply choosing to disbelieve the cops who say he was a threat on principle.
They needed to further restrain him because the level of restraint they used wasn’t sufficient. Even after he was sat on, he continued to struggle. What, I ask again in the vain hope of a sensible answer, should they have done to successfully restrain him? And please, for fuck’s sake, stop asking stupid questions like “why should the police be restraining violent people who are high on crack”. It’s their job, that’s why.
When a cop shouts “Freeze”, then breathing constitutes resisting arrest, so lethal force is required to ensure compliance. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
The fellow had halitosis, so the cops feared for their own safety, necessitating their snuffing him.
The articles cited say that cocaine was detected in his system the day before, May 1. I see no mention of any such on the day in question. Advise.
The autopsy said the cocaine contributed to his death, and he was reportedly agitated and appeared to be hallucinating. Maybe he was just pretending to be high.
Doesn’t really change the question of how he should have been restrained, if the cuffs weren’t doing the job.
A wet sheet? Psych consult and sedation? Patiently wait for him to tire?
On second thought, those options all take too long. Kill him.
I’m using common fucking sense. And the cops never made that claim that I’m aware of.
Sufficient for WHAT ?!
Cite ?
I’ve already answered. Stand away and wait for the EMTs, or for him to calm down on his own. Dunno about you, but I don’t need to be high to panic when crushed by four dudes.
But again, why do you keep asserting he was violent or struggling ? There’s no such allegation in the article. Believe it or not, crack does not turn one into the Hulk, or Wolverine. “High” and “violent” are two different words, you see. The article states he put his hands up and dutifully froze when ordered to. That’s neither violent nor resisting behaviour. His refusal to get down on the ground might have suggested he might have tried to leg it, but that possibility had been dealt with with the leg cuffs.
I’ll ask again, why do you so *need *that guy to have been a bloodcrazed maniac ? Question your assumptions.
Police caught lying and covering up again:
Photo Raises Doubts About Police Shooting of Jermaine McBean
What we really need is for the good cops to stop covering for the bad cops. Should start charging them all with conspiracy. Maybe self-preservation will do the job where morals failed.
Steophampti: Without Googling, what odds do you lay on Mr. McBean’s skin color?
I would argue that “good cops” by definition do not cover for bad cops.
And I would argue that that is the definition of “good cop” in the U.S. today-a cop that is not directly involved in wrongdoing, but won’t lift a finger to stop it if he sees it. The type of “good cop” you would like to see is openly despised in most large police departments.
See Frank Serpico who still (allegedly) receives death threats from the NYPD.
Word. That’s the best way to change the cop culture.
I discovered the truth about Steophan and his comical sidekick, Smapti.
They’re Russian state-backed “deceivers” operating out of the Internet Research Institute in St. Petersburg.
Panic during suffocation = non-compliance, which justifies suffocation being used to ensure compliance. There’s logic for ya! :smack: