The protesters (or many of them) believe that the current situation is a “legal situation that deprives blacks of liberty” or prevents blacks from exercising the same rights as whites.
If, in fact, some significant amount of cops and/or parts of the justice system in general treat black people differently because they’re black, then I think they might be correct.
I don’t generally have a strong opinion on it, I was merely offering up what I believe the explanation is–that legislators don’t want people fighting the police, even when the police are legally on the wrong.
I think there’s compelling arguments on both sides of that. I’d certainly want to resist nefarious government action if directed at me, but I also am not a big fan of people fighting the State.
Should a prosecutor go to trial if he/she believes they have no hope of victory?
You collectively condemned “black America”… e.g. all black people in America.
Many protesters are in fact advocating for this.
Then why did you collectively condemn “black America”?
When someone “puts themselves out there” as representatives of a community, that means it’s okay to collectively hold the community responsible for what that someone says or does? Really?
It’s not like this country has not had extensive experience with the legal system that lets off white people who have committed heinous crimes against black people.
Is this phenomenon really new to you? Or are asserting a core constitutional right on the part of law enforcement personnel to kill people?
I agree Garner should have been indicted just based on what we know (although the evidence we know about Garner is extremely limited versus what we know about Ferguson/Wilson.) I think there is clear negligence from leaving him prone while he essentially suffocated even if other aspects of the matter would be more difficult to prove.
I also think in general prosecutors should not use the grand jury in this way for police. They need to either just openly say they cannot win the case and thus are declining to prosecute (part of their job), or they need to actually try the case, which means a “normal” grand jury process an a strenuous attempt at victory at trial. I think (again, extremely limited knowledge) the Garner case there has been a lot of evidence the officer’s lawyer has spoken about that would hurt any chance of conviction on the more serious types of homicide but there was definitely plain negligence on the video even aside from all that.
In Ferguson I don’t believe there was any chance of conviction or proving any crime beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor there should have declined to even present to a grand jury.
Yeah, time is a big thing. MMA refs stop fights immediately when they see a choke locked. For that reason I don’t believe anyone has ever died from a choke in MMA, even though it is a common move to end fights.
As a policy choice, I don’t think it makes much sense, as I don’t think that knowledge of this law is a motivator for people fighting or not fighting the cops. For one, that knowledge is not widespread.
Mostly, this law will have an after-the-fact effect - that is, the fight has happened, and a suspect is (much later) being prosecuted for ‘resisting arrest’.
The issue will be whether that prosecution is just or not. To my mind, it is unjust. If the police - guardians of the law, and so presumed to know it by way of their profession - get the law wrong, it is unjust to punish someone for defending themselves against what is an illegal confinement.
They’re wrong.
…Somehow I doubt that the people protesting and agitating would feel any better if the prosecutor had just said they weren’t even going to try for an indictment.
Or you are.
Such a terse statement is indicative of someone who is blinded by privilege.
To claim that contact rates, arrest rates, charging rages and incarceration rates are colorblind has no basis in fact.
Kinda hard to do that considering that he’s the, ya should know, . . . dead guy.
CMC fnord!
To my mind, it doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong - a breakdown of relations between the police and any community of the public those police are supposed to be serving and protecting is a failure of policing policy.
As is acknowledged in other areas, the appearance or perception of bias is just as damaging as actual bias.
This harms everyone, as a breakdown in relations makes policing less effective - and tends to have a self-reinforcing effect (if the community perceives the police as ‘the enemy’ they will be less likely to cooperate - and if the police receive less cooperation from a community, they will be more likely to exhibit bias).
This is why the Toronto police, facing similar problems, elected to pursue the strategy outlined upthread. The key perception is that this isn’t an issue of laying blame for racism, but of eliminating a perception of bias - to stop the cycle of ‘us versus them’ mentality.
Granted, the challenges are much greater in the US than in Canada.
If people don’t want the police to view them as their enemies, they should stop committing crimes.
Aaaaaand vice-versa.
The police should stop enforcing the law? I don’t follow.
In this case, both actually apply. Collectively, there is evidence of a systemic problem of police abuses and violence, examples having been cited in this thread by myself and others. At the individual case level, competent and unbiased individuals have given their opinion that on its merits, there was sufficient evidence in this case to go to trial. In fact it’s actually hard to imagine anyone watching the video and thinking otherwise.
Advocating for systemic changes is exactly the position that most people are articulating, including many of the comments here and many thoughtful opinion pieces and, I suspect, the majority of the protestors. I’m not concerned about some hypothetical minority that might be out there protesting regardless of the circumstances just because it was a white cop and a black victim – in this case, the circumstances justify the protests.
Why would you assume that to be true in this case? Secondary questions: Should the prosecutor whose very job depends on a close and collaborative working relationship with the police even be involved in this decision? Is it not a flagrant conflict of interest for him to be responsible for guiding and instructing the grand jury when the accused is a police officer?
No, refs do not do that. They only stop the fight if the fighter taps or is choked unconscious. The difference between an effective choke and an ineffective one is small, and somewhat difficult to determine visually. Here’s a couple examples of fighters being choked unconscious:
They didn’t die because MMA fighters typically aren’t morbidly obese with asthma.
This may be a core question in the end.
Again - the experience in Toronto may be useful.
Here, where a police officer and a member of the public are involved in an incident that has resulted in an allegation of injury, death, or sexual assault, it is investigated by the “special investigations unit” (SIU) that is essentially a police-policing force. The SIU has the power to lay charges.
However, this has not resulted in a perfect system - there are still allegations that the SIU is biased in favour of, or too deferential towards, the police. Allegedly, the situation has improved (somewhat) in that respect recently but is still far from perfect.