That is not a logical conclusion. A drug dealer having opiates and marijuana in his system is not some shocking thing that requires us to assume he swallowed his stash. Also, ingesting raw marijuana does not generally bring on much mental effect at all - the psychoactive elements don’t enter the bloodstream. Thirdly, he was autopsied so they would have mentioned a bag of pills in his stomach, I would think.
The autopsy made no mention of a bag nor the quantity (a failing by the ME, in my book).
And an indication that the levels were probably at what’s expected in a normal drug user.
Assumes facts not in evidence. W/o a statement to the exact level it could be anywhere.
So, rather than face the hideous ordeal and penalties for drug possession and sale, he opted for suicide? “Simple”, yes. Logic? Rather a stretch.
Oh? Really? It “can” result in a seizure? Often? Sometimes? Remotely possible? You have some expertise of your own to offer, or a citation? Because frankly, this is news to me. And are we talking about the lay down and twitch seizure, or flinging oneself bodily about into walls and floors? Because that is one fuck of a seizure!
A man in police custody may have witnessed a police murder, yet, for some reason, was reluctant to say so? This would surprise you?
Ah, the old absurd question ploy! Do you favor sensible restrictions on police behavior, or do you favor letting them kill anybody they feel like? Please!
Oh, how I do wish that were so! Look, my son, the Err Apparent, is so white he burns from the little light bulb in the fridge. And I gave him The Talk. “Yes, sir, No, sir, whatever you say, Officer.” Are they lying, you think? That’s just something black folks tell white folks, it doesn’t really happen?
You wouldn’t?
QFT Maybe the bag was there, and the ME fucked up? Possible. Got anything beyond your baseless conjecture?
What was he arrested for? CBS indicates there was no reason. Wikipedia says he “ran away” and was arrest for carrying a “switchblade” which was not in fact a switchblade and was completely legal. And the idea that someone deserves to die, or loses the presumption of innocence because they’ve previously been involved in criminal activity is absurd.
What, you mean you need a policy for ensuring that someone handcuffed in the back of a van needs to have something to keep him from bouncing around? Apparently yes. This objection is asinine. Similarly asinine: the need for this policy.
And you say this because…? “Gray was apprehended and taken into custody “without the use of force or incident”, according to Officer Garret Miller”, sez Wiki, so this comment has nothing to do with anything.
But all of this is a fairly absurd distraction. They threw him in the back of the van, and by the end of the ride, due to their negligence or malice, he was dead.
I have no idea where you got this from, because every source I’ve found indicates that it’s simply not true. He was not seen making a drug deal.
Missing from all of this: a single citation to back up your claims. The toxicology report cited that he had drugs in his system. There’s no indication of any of what your “simple logic” dictates, because it’s not simple or logical. You’d think a seizure would have turned up in the autopsy; the only place it shows up in the report is as a hypothetical consequence of the lethal injury.
And once again, holy shit, take a step back and look what you’re doing. This guy entered police custody and died. And you think that I should feel bad for the cops responsible for it. You think we should blame him for dying. And to back up your claim, you are inventing a fanciful story wherein this guy swallowed a bag of drugs (I guarantee that would have shown up on the coroner’s report), had a seizure, and this seizure caused him to break his neck. This man is dead because of the malice of negligence of these officers. They’re not gonna get an apology. Anyone else does this and they probably don’t get the charges dropped.
Firstly: not garbage. At this point it’s pretty well-established that this is a broad thing, even among upper-middle-class African-Americans. It’s necessary because of black kids start thinking that the cops are their friends, their rude awakening will generally come in the form of handcuffs and the barrel of a gun if they’re lucky.
Beyond that, do you understand the difference between “a desperate criminal might murder me” and “an officer of the law might murder me”? Because there are some pretty substantial differences there in what that means for society. The former is a tragedy that means you should be careful to avoid dangerous, desperate, or evil people, and do what you can to ensure that things go well there. The latter is an indication that you cannot rely on law enforcement, you cannot call on law enforcement, and that any given interaction with law enforcement can very well lead to the end of your life. And these problems are interconnected as well. What happens when you can’t trust law enforcement to deal with things like gang violence? You take the law into your own hands.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
So, rather than face the hideous ordeal and penalties for drug possession and sale, he opted for suicide? “Simple”, yes. Logic? Rather a stretch.
[/quote]
Yeah, it’s such a stretch that a legal site posted repercussions to such activity:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/11/what-can-happen-if-you-eat-evidence.html
Confusing. A citation should support a point, otherwise, its just a reading assignment. I have little doubt that responsible lawyers would advise against swallowing a mass of drugs to escape legal consequences. What’s your point?
Huh. I was getting the impression that you were totally cool with assumed facts not in evidence. Ok, let’s just say I was using simple logic.
You’re the one that posted that it’s a stretch to think that someone would take the potentially suicidal action of swallowing evidence. I posted that link to show that not only is it not a stretch, but it is quite common.
Yeah, a bunch of attorneys sombrely advising about the legal implications of swallowing evidence, and the last thing they mention is “Oh, it might fucking kill you!” Lawyers!
But the very fact that it was asked and answered means it is a “common” occurrence? A graceful leap of logic not everyone can make.
We spent $4 million on body cameras and they’re never turned on.
Cops just shot a woman who had reported an assault and gosh, not one of them had their cameras on. :rolleyes:
Because for some reason, they’re just never turning them on!
http://kstp.com/news/minneapolis-police-department-body-cam-video-use-low/4540868/
Minneapolis Police Body Cam Data for March 2017
Total number of officers working with body cameras Total hours worked in 911 capacity Body worn camera hours
Precinct 1 79 11,576.5 439.48
Precinct 2 74 10,177 388.72
Precinct 3 94 13.454.75 506.55
Precinct 4 95 13,465.75 584.17
Precinct 5 71 10,112.8 513.03
City Hall 7 979.5 112.32
And what evidence do you have that the shooting was unjustified?
Please tell me where in my post I stated that.
However, the mayor has asked the BCA to investigate it.
You quote law like it matters, yet when I suggest a way to get high compliance with laws you seem to think law doesn’t matter enough to consider it.
You also think that the 4th Amendment is important, yet it isn’t important enough to guarantee those rights to workers, who are people and need to work in order to survive.
You didn’t. But it’s clear that your insinuation is that they didn’t have the cameras on b/c they were doing something wrong.
And what would happen to the mayor politically if the investigation wasn’t called for (justified or not)?
If by now you don’t understand how the 4th Amendment is a bar against broad government searches of the citizenry’s private affairs, but not against employment conditioned on wearing a body camera, we’ve probably reached the limits of my ability to explain it to you further.
My insinuation? Be very careful of putting words in people’s mouths.
But I will come out and say it. They were doing something wrong.
The mayor has had clashes with the police already over them not following direction or obeying laws. Nothing will happen to her politically over this. The BCA will investigate and determine what happened here.