Please stop trying to post on topic to this thread. Several morons are trying to derail the shit out of it. **Elvis **, please continue, I think it’s your turn.
Also vaguely good news, the Police Officers Union (several unions, apparently) are joining the Mayor in suggesting the language of protest be toned down, at least until after the funeral. Meanwhile, community activists are agreeing that the protests should be made less emotional.
A few days of cooling off for the Christmas holiday can’t hurt.
The name-calling might begin again on Boxing Day, but just for the moment, the suffering and sorrow is sufficient.
Aaaaand there it is, the anti-Obama-outrage-of-the-month from the Fox News-watching crowd: “Obama went golfing!!!”
My Tea Partier aunt just posted something about Greta Von Susteren giving up her weekend to dash back to the Fox News studio to cover the murders of the policemen, with almost all the comments being, “Too bad Obama can’t be bothered to do the same!” Leaving the question open as to exactly what the President’s role might be in investigating a shooting of policemen in Brooklyn, or dealing with the internal workings of the NYC police union …
I’m always amazed that the people who loathe Obama, who absolutely hate him and everything they think he stands for, have such a continual shit-fit about him golfing, or vacationing, or doodling in the margins of his State of the Union address or whatever. Shouldn’t these yahoos be happy that he’s off riding in his golf cart or relaxing on a beach, rather than sitting in the Oval Office twirling his mustache while creating new plots to bring down America while creating his new socialist-fascist-Nazi-Communist workers’ paradise? Come on, guys - you should want Obama to be golfing all the damn time, instead of bitching about it like a bunch of whiny brats.
LOL. This post makes my day.
A-hem. Thread title = The ambushed cops: So, it’s all Obama’s fault now?
(post shortened)
FYI - Because of the thread title, I thought it was only fair that Nobel Peace Prize recipient Obama should be given an honorable mention in some of the posts.
But President “Shotgun” Joe Biden does have a nice ring to it.
First of all, “cardiac arrest” is not a cause of death. Or, rather, it’s kind of everybody’s cause of death, because it just means that your heart stops. It’s not synonymous with “heart attack” or “myocardial infarction” as some have suggested in this thread. I haven’t seen his death certificate, but I’d be shocked if that’s actually on it–most of the time they won’t take it in my state if you use that.
A death certificate has two sections for COD. The first is the chain of events that led directly to death, and the second is factors that contributed but were not distinct events in that chain. So if I have a nursing home patient who dies of an MI but was in a weakened condition due to advanced Alzheimer’s and a recent bout of pneumonia, the first part would be myocardial infarction due to coronary artery disease, and the second part might include Alzheimer’s and pneumonia.
From what I can tell, the officers’ actions are in the first part of the COD and the asthma and obesity are in the second part. So the fact that those are listed as contributing factors takes nothing away from the fact that the actual cause of death was the officers’ actions. They’re listed as contributing factors because there’s specifically a place to list that sort of thing.
The reason this irks me so much is that it combines victim blaming with good old fashioned fat shaming. If Eric Garner had been a bony little dude and the officer’s chokehold had snapped his neck, would people be saying, “He died because he’s a skinny little fuck! It’s his own fault! If he’d had some meat on his bones he would have survived!” I seriously doubt it.
(Note: I say this as someone who doesn’t necessarily believe the officer should have been indicted. I think the problem both here and in Ferguson is far more systemic, and indicting just the officers at the end of the chain seems like scapegoating.)
We really need a debate on this question, but I don’t see it happening much.
Here is a useful background essay on how (Federal) grand juries really work. As Ken White of Popehat describes here, grand juries are really just sham procedures, which do little other than rubber-stamp whatever the prosecutor asks them to do.
The Kaley Forfeiture Decision: What It Looks Like When The Feds Make Their Ham Sandwich, Ken White, Popehat, Feb. 27, 2014.
(I think grand juries, other than Federal, must be similar.)
No. Not all 6 were “contributing factors”. Your attempt to equivocate the police actions that killed Mr. Garner with the things that helped the police kill him faster than normal is disgusting.
The fact that you altered a quote in order to try and support your ludicrous argument isn’t lost on anyone, either.
Something other than kill them.
Do you have some stats to back up this claim?
Judge Wachtler when he made his famous “ham sandwich” remark was thinking of state Grand juries not Federal Grand Juries.
Not 100% sure if this is relevant (your question seems oddly posed in relation to the text you quoted), but I think it is; it’s from Senegoid’s link above:
Here is a link: - showing that at 3-5%, “no true bill” decisions are definitely not anywhere near the fraction-of-a-percent like they are in federal Grand Juries (this one for NYS). Note: this is in general cases, not police shootings.
And in cases where the accused decides to testify, some fairly anecdotal evidence that “no true bill” decisions percentage is a lot higher:
Last October, Anwaar Muhammad, now 21, nervously faced a Queens grand jury after his lawyer, Philip B. Stone, concluded that Mr. Muhammad’s slender build, clean record and soft-spoken nature would undercut police accounts that he had assaulted officers at a no-alcohol club the previous spring.
At first, Mr. Muhammad said recently, the experience of addressing 23 strangers was nerve-racking. Then, he said, ‘‘when I was talking, it looked as if they were really paying attention, like they really wanted to find out what happened.’’
The grand jury voted, in legal parlance, ‘‘no true bill of indictment,’’ and Mr. Muhammad no longer faced any criminal charges.
At the Legal Aid Society, which represents tens of thousands of defendants every year, some lawyers have aggressively allowed their clients to testify before grand juries. In some years, they said, grand jurors in some boroughs voted not to indict in more than 60 percent of cases in which Legal Aid clients testified.
So that fivethirtyeight.com “incredibly rare” statement is complete crap.
First there is the issue of “deciding to testify”. I’m not at all sure that is the prospective defendant’s option. Second is your use of “fairly anecdotal” as if that were synonymous with “reliable”. And third, this is, of course, one…count 'em, one!..incident.
It is.
Apparently you didn’t read what I cited.
Fuck it doorhinge, you’re going on ignore like Smapti. Terr makes arguments I don’t like, that I often think are flawed. But you take it to another level. It really is like watching Fox News, and I don’t come to the Dope for that bullshit.
The death was ruled a homicide. That means its primary cause were the actions of others, not the guy’s poor health. The only action that was taken by others was the take down which cut off his oxygen. He was killed by a bloodchoke.
And, no, you can’t come by and say it’s petty to point that out. It’s the main argument you keep bringing up. It’s pointless.
And, come to think of it, I’m being hard on Fox News, because I read that multiple presenters did actually condemn the death, without trying to farm it off. So you’re worse than Fox News.
The board doesn’t have time for this bullshit.
It seems that you did not read both what that cite and what fivethirtyeitght reported, care to check what you got wrong as usual?
Here is a hint: you have a problem looking at dates and differentiating among states (and in areas of an state) and the federal levels, and also the point of 538 is related to police indictments and one of your cites is about undermining the police testimonies that lead to indictments. In the case that you quoted from is likely that the cops were stretching the truth. Not what I would bring into a discussion like this one if one is looking to defend the unprofessional behavior of the police union heads.
-
fivethirtyeight tried to imply, using irrelevant Federal Grand Jury statistics that the Ferguson case’s Grand Jury’s “no true bill” decision was an “incredibly rare” occurrence. That is pure falsehood.
-
Once we move past that, fivethirtyeight article omitted the fact that in lots of states (I know it is true in Texas, but probably a lot of others as well) every police shooting resulting in a fatality is brought to a Grand Jury, by law. Which would skew the statistics quite a bit.
-
It is sad that fivethirtyeight has diminished its reputation quite a bit by posting such a poorly researched article.
Then we’re good. Because they didn’t.
The report does lead one to think that.
538 clarified already that what you claim here is not related.
And what we found is that you brought articles that undermine the trust in the NYPD, not my problem that that diminishes even more your already sorry reputation.
Hey, I can bring the horse to water - making him drink is another matter. I already showed that, contrary to fivethirtyeight’s claim, it is not “nearly always” that the prosecutor in a state grand jury fails to get an indictment. 4-5% “no true bills” in the article I cited make this a falsehood - it is not “incredibly rare”. 11 cases out of 160,000, which fivethirtyeight cited as support for its false statement is, indeed, “incredibly rare”. Too bad that number is irrelevant.