Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., a 68-year-old African-American Marine veteran, was fatally shot in November by White Plains, NY, police who responded to a false alarm from his medical alert pendant. The officers broke down Chamberlain’s door, tasered him, and then shot him dead. Audio of the entire incident was recorded by the medical alert device in Chamberlain’s apartment.
His son, Kenneth Chambrlain, Jr., was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, and filled in some details. The story is heartbreaking:
He’s saying that he’s OK. He’s saying that he did not call for them. But they were very insistent. They were banging on the door, banging on the door, banging on the door. So you hear one of the officers say to him, “Well, you pushed your—you triggered your alarm now.” He said, “That’s because I want you to leave me alone.” And they just kept telling him, “Open the door. Open the door. Let us see that you’re all right.” At some point, the door was cracked open, because the police officers have a taser that has a camera on it, and it also has audio. So you could see where the door was cracked open. So, once you’ve gotten a visual, and you’ve seen that my father is OK, and he’s telling you that he’s OK, why would you still insist on getting into the apartment? Which is the question that I have. And they weren’t responding to a crime. He was sleeping and accidentally triggered his alarm.
Ultimately, after using expletives and racial slurs, they broke down the door. You can see on the video from the taser that they fired a taser at him. And I’m assuming that both prongs didn’t go in. He stood about maybe eight to 10 feet away from them with his hands down to his side. And at one point, you hear one of the officers say, “Cut it off.” And it was at that point they shot and killed my father.
QuoteKenneth Chamberlain, Sr., a 68-year-old African-American Marine veteran, was fatally shot in November by White Plains, NY, police who responded to a false alarm from his medical alert pendant. The officers broke down Chamberlain’s door, tasered him, and then shot him dead. Audio of the entire incident was recorded by the medical alert device in Chamberlain’s apartment.
His son, Kenneth Chambrlain, Jr., was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, and filled in some details. The story is heartbreaking:
He’s saying that he’s OK. He’s saying that he did not call for them. But they were very insistent. They were banging on the door, banging on the door, banging on the door. So you hear one of the officers say to him, “Well, you pushed your—you triggered your alarm now.” He said, “That’s because I want you to leave me alone.” And they just kept telling him, “Open the door. Open the door. Let us see that you’re all right.” At some point, the door was cracked open, because the police officers have a taser that has a camera on it, and it also has audio. So you could see where the door was cracked open. So, once you’ve gotten a visual, and you’ve seen that my father is OK, and he’s telling you that he’s OK, why would you still insist on getting into the apartment? Which is the question that I have. And they weren’t responding to a crime. He was sleeping and accidentally triggered his alarm.
Ultimately, after using expletives and racial slurs, they broke down the door. You can see on the video from the taser that they fired a taser at him. And I’m assuming that both prongs didn’t go in. He stood about maybe eight to 10 feet away from them with his hands down to his side. And at one point, you hear one of the officers say, “Cut it off.” And it was at that point they shot and killed my father.
http://prospect.org/article/today-reasons-be-killed-if-youre-black
I hope the cop that shot him gets fired. But I know that might not happen.
Hmm...he has a knife...they have tazers...but they go for their pistols...
Administrative leave and once it dies down they'll be back on the streets.
*sighs* And of course the victim is black.
Is it jsut me, or has there been a surge of violence against black people lately?
*sighs* And of course the victim is black.
Is it jsut me, or has there been a surge of violence against black people lately?
Oh yes, entirely unprovoked too. He didn't hit his emergency responder button. He didn't swing a hatchet at a door. The cops had absolutely no reason to be there let alone try to subdue him when he showed he was violent and ended up shooting him...
And you'll ignore all the things that happened to OWSers too I imagine.
There is no increase in harassment against anyone than there was before, just more being caught on tape and posted to the internet where people are willing to lose their shit without looking anything up
It doesn't matter if he was swinging a knife. Tazers, pepper spray, and other "nonlethal" forms of violence are supposed to be used instead of guns. That is, as a replacement for guns. The problem is, people think "nonlethal" means "I can use this as much as I want."
If they were proper policemen, they would have stopped at the tazer.
*sighs* And of course the victim is black.
Is it jsut me, or has there been a surge of violence against black people lately?
Oh yes, entirely unprovoked too. He didn't hit his emergency responder button. He didn't swing a hatchet at a door. The cops had absolutely no reason to be there let alone try to subdue him when he showed he was violent and ended up shooting him...
And you'll ignore all the things that happened to OWSers too I imagine.
There is no increase in harassment against anyone than there was before, just more being caught on tape and posted to the internet where people are willing to lose their shit without looking anything up
It doesn't matter if he was swinging a knife. Tazers, pepper spray, and other "nonlethal" forms of violence are supposed to be used instead of guns. That is, as a replacement for guns. The problem is, people think "nonlethal" means "I can use this as much as I want."
If they were proper policemen, they would have stopped at the tazer.
*sighs* And of course the victim is black.
Is it jsut me, or has there been a surge of violence against black people lately?
Oh yes, entirely unprovoked too. He didn't hit his emergency responder button. He didn't swing a hatchet at a door. The cops had absolutely no reason to be there let alone try to subdue him when he showed he was violent and ended up shooting him...
And you'll ignore all the things that happened to OWSers too I imagine.
There is no increase in harassment against anyone than there was before, just more being caught on tape and posted to the internet where people are willing to lose their shit without looking anything up
Because I'm sure the police department always tells the truth and never lies to try saving the skin of its employees. Nosirree.
If you believe the police report without any actual evidence, then I've got a bridge on the moon to sell you.
The issue I have with that line of reasoning is... the victim's relative wasn't there. His account is meaningless because he doesn't even have an account to tell.
I don't automatically trust the police in this case. But if they are telling the truth, then I feel they've done nothing wrong. As compared to Smurfette, who seems to be of the opinion that even if the guy was actively trying to kill the officers, they went too far by shooting him.
Yes, there's a bit of sensationalism going on with this, but again, the police, as an institution, have an infamous history when it comes to being disproportionally violent with minorities...
It doesn't matter if he was swinging a knife. Tazers, pepper spray, and other "nonlethal" forms of violence are supposed to be used instead of guns. That is, as a replacement for guns. The problem is, people think "nonlethal" means "I can use this as much as I want."
If they were proper policemen, they would have stopped at the tazer.
However I am inclined to say it is getting significantly worse in general.
Considering the police has a history of lying about people wronged by them (See their actions against OWS, for example) in order to prevent themselves from being charged, the police are automatically suspect and must provide evidence (in the form of video, for instance) that proves their case.
Until then, even a relative in grief is more trustworthy than them.
I have respect for the good people in the police, but as an institution, they've done so many suspect things that when it comes to the word of a victim or a victim's relative vs. the word of the policemen themselves, I'm going to side with the victim, until evidence comes out that proves the victim wrong.
For someone who's not drawing conclusions on this, you sure are talking like the police are telling facts.
Where does it say this in either article? That he wasn't there?
Because in the first article, it sounded like he had quite a detailed description. Far more detailed for someone who wasn't there. Not saying that's proof that he was there, but it leads one to believe that he's a bit more familiar with it.
Y'all still remember years ago on the old forum AA and LHM posting stories of police brutality and the forum dogpiling on them....
Things sure have changed.
Y'all still remember years ago on the old forum AA and LHM posting stories of police brutality and the forum dogpiling on them....
Things sure have changed.
Actually, there is no law against it, but it is a policy in almost all police departments not to let themselves be recorded, so most of the time the people are detained, the video is deleted, and then they are let go without being charged of accused of anything.*sighs* And of course the victim is black.
Is it jsut me, or has there been a surge of violence against black people lately?
Oh yes, entirely unprovoked too. He didn't hit his emergency responder button. He didn't swing a hatchet at a door. The cops had absolutely no reason to be there let alone try to subdue him when he showed he was violent and ended up shooting him...
And you'll ignore all the things that happened to OWSers too I imagine.
There is no increase in harassment against anyone than there was before, just more being caught on tape and posted to the internet where people are willing to lose their shit without looking anything up
In most places you can be arrested for recording a cop. I wonder why they made that law?
Actually, there is no law against it, but it is a policy in almost all police departments not to let themselves be recorded, so most of the time the people are detained, the video is deleted, and then they are let go without being charged of accused of anything.*sighs* And of course the victim is black.
Is it jsut me, or has there been a surge of violence against black people lately?
Oh yes, entirely unprovoked too. He didn't hit his emergency responder button. He didn't swing a hatchet at a door. The cops had absolutely no reason to be there let alone try to subdue him when he showed he was violent and ended up shooting him...
And you'll ignore all the things that happened to OWSers too I imagine.
There is no increase in harassment against anyone than there was before, just more being caught on tape and posted to the internet where people are willing to lose their shit without looking anything up
In most places you can be arrested for recording a cop. I wonder why they made that law?
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/12/doj-weighs-in-on-md-police-recording-suit/ (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/12/doj-weighs-in-on-md-police-recording-suit/)
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-13/news/bal-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-aclu-police-taping-lawsuit-20120213_1_police-union-aclu-videotape-police-officers (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-13/news/bal-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-aclu-police-taping-lawsuit-20120213_1_police-union-aclu-videotape-police-officers)
"even a relative in grief is more trustworthy than them."
So you'll take one group of people's history for lying over another based on...well, because the other group are cops
I'm not sure who's right or wrong in this one. From experience and simple reason, the cops story seems to mesh with reality more.
It says that he watched the tapes the cops took. I would think if he was there he'd be mentioned in the report and wouldn't need to see the video
Actually, there is no law against it, but it is a policy in almost all police departments not to let themselves be recorded, so most of the time the people are detained, the video is deleted, and then they are let go without being charged of accused of anything.*sighs* And of course the victim is black.
Is it jsut me, or has there been a surge of violence against black people lately?
Oh yes, entirely unprovoked too. He didn't hit his emergency responder button. He didn't swing a hatchet at a door. The cops had absolutely no reason to be there let alone try to subdue him when he showed he was violent and ended up shooting him...
And you'll ignore all the things that happened to OWSers too I imagine.
There is no increase in harassment against anyone than there was before, just more being caught on tape and posted to the internet where people are willing to lose their shit without looking anything up
In most places you can be arrested for recording a cop. I wonder why they made that law?
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/12/doj-weighs-in-on-md-police-recording-suit/ (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/12/doj-weighs-in-on-md-police-recording-suit/)
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-13/news/bal-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-aclu-police-taping-lawsuit-20120213_1_police-union-aclu-videotape-police-officers (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-13/news/bal-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-aclu-police-taping-lawsuit-20120213_1_police-union-aclu-videotape-police-officers)
Ye and no.
Some depts have tried to charge people under wiretapping laws which can carry a steep prison time (if your name isn't James Okeefe)
Meanwhile after protests and many false arrests, New York tried to ban filming on the public streets without a permit and a million dollar insurance policy.
So far they have failed to make any of this stick. But the will to do so is there.
Actually, the second article adresses that very issue of being charged with wiretapping. The judge found that wiretapping charges cannot apply. EDIT: the second link is broken. Here's a new one: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/appeals-court-unanimously-affirms-right-videotape-police (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/appeals-court-unanimously-affirms-right-videotape-police)Actually, there is no law against it, but it is a policy in almost all police departments not to let themselves be recorded, so most of the time the people are detained, the video is deleted, and then they are let go without being charged of accused of anything.*sighs* And of course the victim is black.
Is it jsut me, or has there been a surge of violence against black people lately?
Oh yes, entirely unprovoked too. He didn't hit his emergency responder button. He didn't swing a hatchet at a door. The cops had absolutely no reason to be there let alone try to subdue him when he showed he was violent and ended up shooting him...
And you'll ignore all the things that happened to OWSers too I imagine.
There is no increase in harassment against anyone than there was before, just more being caught on tape and posted to the internet where people are willing to lose their shit without looking anything up
In most places you can be arrested for recording a cop. I wonder why they made that law?
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/12/doj-weighs-in-on-md-police-recording-suit/ (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/12/doj-weighs-in-on-md-police-recording-suit/)
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-13/news/bal-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-aclu-police-taping-lawsuit-20120213_1_police-union-aclu-videotape-police-officers (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-02-13/news/bal-judge-denies-motion-to-dismiss-aclu-police-taping-lawsuit-20120213_1_police-union-aclu-videotape-police-officers)
Ye and no.
Some depts have tried to charge people under wiretapping laws which can carry a steep prison time (if your name isn't James Okeefe)
Meanwhile after protests and many false arrests, New York tried to ban filming on the public streets without a permit and a million dollar insurance policy.
So far they have failed to make any of this stick. But the will to do so is there.
he U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously late Friday that Simon Glik had a right to videotape police in action on Boston Common. Mr. Glik sued three police officers and the City of Boston for violating his civil rights after police arrested him and charged him with illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace--all for merely holding up his cell phone and openly recording Boston police officers who were punching another man on Boston Common in October 2007.
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
I don't get how the two stories can be so wildly different. The police have him thrashing around, attempting suicide, and coming after them with two different weapons even after they've disarmed him once and have incapacitated him. The relative has him standing with his hands at his sides, something he wouldn't know (not being there) unless he'd seen the tapes. Someone is lying here.
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.
I don't get how the two stories can be so wildly different. The police have him thrashing around, attempting suicide, and coming after them with two different weapons even after they've disarmed him once and have incapacitated him. The relative has him standing with his hands at his sides, something he wouldn't know (not being there) unless he'd seen the tapes. Someone is lying here.
My gut instinct is to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle, since that often seems to be the case when it comes to my-word-against-yours situations.
For someone who pointed out OWS in his second post, you sure are forgetting the large amount of fibbing that the police are doing about OWS...
Let's say you accidentally pressed your medical alert bracelet, and the cops knock on your door and ask if you're alright. So you say you're alright. Suddenly, they begin to bash down your door. What do you do?
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
Okay, we have two different stories. Now the truth most like is somewhere in between. Let look at each one and see which one makes more sense.
First we have a man accidentally triggered his medical alert device. The police arrive but the man will not let them in because it was a mistake. The police taser him, then shoot him out while he is just standing there, I guess out of frustration...or because he is black...or the cops are evil...take your pick.
Second we have a man activating his medical alert device for unknown reasons. The police hear shouting and ad incoherent voices behind the door. They ask to come in but are denied, talking a hatchet away from a man. They finally get into the apartment to make sure everyone is okay, while trying to talk a disturbed man. They try to subdue him but he comes at them with a knife and they are forced to shoot him.
To me one of these sounds like it would be closer to the truth than the other.
I think it is more that grief stricken people are unwilling to accept things that happen. Which is is lying, but understandable.
Personally I feel higher my negative number is the more I'm doing my job!
My gut instinct is to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle, since that often seems to be the case when it comes to my-word-against-yours situations.
Okay, we have two different stories. Now the truth most like is somewhere in between. Let look at each one and see which one makes more sense.
Okay, we have two different stories. Now the truth most like is somewhere in between. Let look at each one and see which one makes more sense.
While you may well be right, it is a pet peeve of my mine when people hold that attitude because it is intellectually lazy. Most of the time someone is just fucking incorrect, whether it be through gross misinterpretation of available evidence (conspiracy theorists), denial of evidence (YECs, Holocaust Deniers), or outright falsehood (Fox News pundits). The times where the truth is actually in between the two extremes seem to be fairly rare, really.
That's true when you're dealing with a situation of science and logic vs. faith and bullshit in general (as is the case in all of your examples), but when both sides are essentially anecdotes and quite obviously biased ones at that, then the truth is indeed often somewhere in the middle.
The two extremes are "He was standing there completely unarmed and innocently, they shot him without provocation" and "He came at us with weapons and we had no choice but to shoot". What's the middle ground there? The facts of the two stories are so wildly different that at least one of the sides must be far more incorrect than not.I'm not saying they both have to be equally close to the truth, just that it's quite likely that the real story isn't exactly as either one of the other side claims. I've no idea what the truth of the matter could potentially be, nor do I care to speculate on account of fucking pointless, just saying that with these things, it's very rare that one side is either completely right or completely wrong.
Unless you count something like "he was armed but was not threatening himself or the police" as "in the middle". I would not, because if the police aren't being threatened then there's not justification for shooting and the family's story is the one consistent with the facts.
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.
What she said. x10
But then again, I've always known D Laurier to be an unashamed cop hater.
There is however, some more to the story (http://www.thedailywhiteplains.com/news/son-asks-white-plains-release-name-officer) and I am hoping the White Plains PD does the right thing and investigates fully.
Other than that, I have no comment on the story itself.
And I dont particularly repect the shit that pig lovers spew out when they are activly betraying their fellow humans by siding with the pigs.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
The correct term is "decent human being".
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
"Somewhere in the middle" does not mean "exactly in the middle", Kit, regardless of how you personally define the phrase.
My point is that both sides are emotionally invested, meaning that both are liable to make assumptions, remember things incorrectly, or outright lie. Of course one half is going to be far closer to the truth than the other -- that's so obvious that it goes without saying, hence my not bloody saying it. No one is making a middle ground fallacy by acknowledging that neither account is likely to be 100% accurate, thereby making it, as you say, intellectually lazy to draw concrete conclusions from either article.
and I dont particularly repect the shit that pig lovers spew out when they are activly betraying their fellow humans by siding with the pigs.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.
And I dont particularly repect the shit that pig lovers spew out when they are activly betraying their fellow humans by siding with the pigs.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
That said, I believe police are necessary, but again, I would like a lot more oversight.
I have had officers call me tranny, make veiled threats, and (before I came out back a few years ago) one Virginia State Trooper tell me "If I ever see you again, even for a routine traffic violation, I'll skullfuck you"
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
Fair enough. I've seen that phrase used incorrectly far more often than correctly that I knee-jerk associate it with a kind of "golden mean" reasoning, "since there are two extremes, neither side is more right than the other" kind of garbage. I apologize, I shouldn't have gone with my knee-jerk reaction.
Speaking from personal experience, I've seen pigs lie shamelessly to justify all manner of grotesque acts of violence and depravity.
More than once I was jumped while carrying my groceries home, and the pigs always made some vague insinuations about "concern for public safety", or some other bullshit.
I say the pigs are lying.
Personally, I don't really value the opinion of anyone who refers to all police officers as "pigs" as a matter of course.
And I dont particularly repect the shit that pig lovers spew out when they are activly betraying their fellow humans by siding with the pigs.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
You want to murder me because I refuse to adore the monsters who raped me over and over again for years?The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
And you're advocating violence against the very people, GOOD PEOPLE for the most part, that we pay to protect us. I knew there was a reason I hated you and wanted to crack your skull with a crowbar. I hope we never meet in real life, because odds are good I'm going to want to lay you out.
I never thought I'd have to put anybody on my ignore list, but you're the first. Fucking congratulations.
I have had officers call me tranny, make veiled threats, and (before I came out back a few years ago) one Virginia State Trooper tell me "If I ever see you again, even for a routine traffic violation, I'll skullfuck you"
About that last one. If any said that to me and didn't have way too much invulnerability to consequences and a gun, I would beat them "like a god damn step-child"(to use a phrase common around here). That's way the fuck out of line. What did you do to get such a response?
And I dont particularly repect the shit that pig lovers spew out when they are activly betraying their fellow humans by siding with the pigs.
The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
You want to murder me because I refuse to adore the monsters who raped me over and over again for years?The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
And you're advocating violence against the very people, GOOD PEOPLE for the most part, that we pay to protect us. I knew there was a reason I hated you and wanted to crack your skull with a crowbar. I hope we never meet in real life, because odds are good I'm going to want to lay you out.
I never thought I'd have to put anybody on my ignore list, but you're the first. Fucking congratulations.
You think you can just walk up to me and kill me? and that I wont stand up and defend myself?
You want to murder me because I refuse to adore the monsters who raped me over and over again for years?
@QueenofHearts: Around here I've heard they can arrest you for refusing to let them search your car. Like I said before, I want to beat the shit out of people like that.
You want to murder me because I refuse to adore the monsters who raped me over and over again for years?
False equivalency. The opposite of "slaughter" is not "adoration". You can criticize the actions of the police, police corruption, the tone of law enforcement subculture, the "thin blue line" mindset, etc while still acknowledging that the 1,021,456 (2009 Data (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_74.html)) law enforcement officers in the United States are still human being and nowhere near being a hegemony. While I don't know your story and it sounds like (depending on the literalness of the above statement) like you'd have some excellent reasons to be uncomfortable around police officers, that still doesn't justify holding such an extreme position.
EDIT: Well, not really because D Laurier replied before I posted this, but it's tacked on nevertheless. That's terrible, I can not imagine what you've gone through and you do have legitimate reasons to distrust police officers. However, you were attacked by people, not a profession. A cop from Sarasota, Florida has literally nothing to do with the tragedy that befell you.
You want to murder me because I refuse to adore the monsters who raped me over and over again for years?The only good pig is a dead pig, and only cowards and collaborators say otherwise.
And you're advocating violence against the very people, GOOD PEOPLE for the most part, that we pay to protect us. I knew there was a reason I hated you and wanted to crack your skull with a crowbar. I hope we never meet in real life, because odds are good I'm going to want to lay you out.
I never thought I'd have to put anybody on my ignore list, but you're the first. Fucking congratulations.
You think you can just walk up to me and kill me? and that I wont stand up and defend myself?
Raped you? Can you please explain this to me, as I don't recall this being said before.
@QueenofHearts: Around here I've heard they can arrest you for refusing to let them search your car. Like I said before, I want to beat the shit out of people like that.
I'm trying to wrap my head around your suggestion that they are not simply monsters that prey upon a defenceless public.Well, for one, I don't let any human being (not even Hitler) get away with the "monster" label. Human beings almost always have a choice, monsters do not. A vampire doesn't choose to drink blood, they do it because they have to. A human being, excepting cases of mental illness, chooses to inflict harm on
A white man with a gun, a sense of entitlement, and no moral inhibitions.That label sounds like it very well described the officers who harassed you. In one city. In Canada. They sound like evil fucks who get off on power who should be in prison instead of sending people there. They're really some of the worst examples of humanity you can encounter outside of a dictatorship.
Do I believe that an old man attacked them in Sarasota? No.
Do I believe that they decided to kill an old man they felt was too dark of complexion? Yes.
It's a long poe/troll story he posted years ago on the old boards and promptly got a multitude of his dislike at that point. The rest of his shit just adds to it
BACK ON TOPIC: It seems that the officer involve in the shooting was already under investigation for brutality against an Arab-American. (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/sources-identify-white-plains-anthony-carelli-triggerman-fatal-shooting-retired-marine-article-1.1056394)
The person who fired had never used his gun in the line of duty before. He and several other officers ended up seeking treatment for trauma, which doesn't sound likely in the case of a cold blood shooting.
I have to broadly agree with D Laurier. The problem with the police is that they are basic weapon of the state to maintain their rule. If that means they are racist because that's what they need to do to control certain 'sections' of people then so be it. Police are encouraged to use violence everyday, and their role in society designates the rest of us as potential enemies.
I have to broadly agree with D Laurier. The problem with the police is that they are basic weapon of the state to maintain their rule. If that means they are racist because that's what they need to do to control certain 'sections' of people then so be it. Police are encouraged to use violence everyday, and their role in society designates the rest of us as potential enemies.
I have to broadly agree with D Laurier. The problem with the police is that they are basic weapon of the state to maintain their rule. If that means they are racist because that's what they need to do to control certain 'sections' of people then so be it. Police are encouraged to use violence everyday, and their role in society designates the rest of us as potential enemies.
Wait, I thought you were taking the piss before.
You're serious?
Wow. Fundies among us.
Seeing as how the whole purpose of this site is to mock fundies, that's not a charge you should throw around lightly. If anything, questioning an officer's authority, intentions, or morality to me seems less fundamentalist than blindly accepting them as credible and good. Just an observation, for what little its worth.
I can see your point Largeham, but I think you don't see what others are seeing. People found the idea of dehumanizing all policemen as pigs is problematic, because policemen as individual are still human.
Sure must be terrible for all those black cops, then.What percentage of the force do they make up? Also, yes it is fundamentally a class issue, but the police will racism because it is easier to dehumanise and justify what they do.
Blindly accusing them all of being evil and worthy of death isn't questioning their authority, intentions, or morality: it's rabidly hating an entire group of people, and that's just as fundamentalist as blindly loving all of them. Etc...
Sure must be terrible for all those black cops, then.
That is a complete non sequitur. This rests on the flawed assumption that black people can not perpetuate a system of white-supremacy.
I never said that all police should be killed. And yes, I recognise that not all cops are racist on an individual level. Just that the institutions they work for encourage it.
And @ Smurfette, that was in relation to Zachski's quote at Largeham. I've already stated my disagreement on the page 5 with the quote you mentioned.
I see what you mean, gyeonghwa, but then as I said, I don't think that all cops are individually racist, (though in my limited experience a lot of them are), but they do support a racist and violent institution.
Sure must be terrible for all those black cops, then.
That is a complete non sequitur. This rests on the flawed assumption that black people can not perpetuate a system of white-supremacy.
And @ Smurfette, that was in relation to Zachski's quote at Largeham. I've already stated my disagreement on the page 5 with the quote you mentioned.
And @ WYKKED, I AM FUCKING CALM!!!! ;D ;D ;D
I can see your point Largeham, but I think you don't see what others are seeing. People found the idea of dehumanizing all policemen as pigs is problematic, because policemen as individual are still human.
I don't characterise cops as pigs (though from my point because it is an insult to bacon). So what if they are just human, everyone is, they still do it. It doesn't change a thing.Sure must be terrible for all those black cops, then.What percentage of the force do they make up? Also, yes it is fundamentally a class issue, but the police will racism because it is easier to dehumanise and justify what they do.
http://leninology.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/police-racism-and-brutality-its-job.html
And yes, I'm not fussed if someone come's out and calls it commie bullshit, the point is that s/he presents my points much better than I.Blindly accusing them all of being evil and worthy of death isn't questioning their authority, intentions, or morality: it's rabidly hating an entire group of people, and that's just as fundamentalist as blindly loving all of them. Etc...
I never said that all police should be killed. And yes, I recognise that not all cops are racist on an individual level. Just that the institutions they work for encourage it.
Is there any actual evidence that the story is false? Sad as it is to say, it is not unheard of for this sort of thing to happen. I admit, it sounds a touch exaggerated (Did corrupt cops steal D Laurier's couch when they took everything he owned?) but certainly not impossible or even improbable. Especially if it is in a small town.
EDIT: Looked it up (http://fstdt.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=pg&thread=1310&page=2#43146). His full story seems to...strain credulity.
I have to broadly agree with D Laurier. The problem with the police is that they are basic weapon of the state to maintain their rule. If that means they are racist because that's what they need to do to control certain 'sections' of people then so be it. Police are encouraged to use violence everyday, and their role in society designates the rest of us as potential enemies.
Wait, I thought you were taking the piss before.
You're serious?
Wow. Fundies among us.
Seeing as how the whole purpose of this site is to mock fundies, that's not a charge you should throw around lightly. If anything, questioning an officer's authority, intentions, or morality to me seems less fundamentalist than blindly accepting them as credible and good. Just an observation, for what little its worth.
No, but D Laurier did ("the only good pig is a dead pig") and then said you agreed with that argument.I said I broadly agree with D Laurier, but fine: I do not wish death upon every police officer.
Is that the institution itself, though, or is it the most obvious manifestation of a racist and violent society? This is a legitmate question: my personal opinion is that society itself is racist and violent, and that sentiment is codified and supported by the system; i.e., if society wasn't racist and violent, our police force wouldn't be that way.I agree, if society wasn't racist and violent, then any police force probably wouldn't be. But I don't think society will ever become non-racist and non-violent under capitalism (but whatever, another debate).
1) They still do it, doesn't change a thing-- I don't see what point you're trying to make here. Lots of people regardless of profession abuse their powers. Politicians, doctors, whatever.
2) Why do people always ask for demographics? There is no fucking census for this sort of thing. It would be like asking me to tell you how many people in the military are gay. I can't.
3) I already mentioned the institutions thing. I wouldn't say encourage. Encourage is a strong word. All I picture when you say that is the Mayor going 'go on, police, go on. Beat up that black guy for being black. It's okay. Go on. Do it!"
No, but declaring or implying police are racist jack booted thugs of Hitler's dreams is fairly fundie.Nice, and I mentioned Hitler where exactly?
I'd like to see this proof that cops are encouraged to use violence.
Is there any actual evidence that the story is false? Sad as it is to say, it is not unheard of for this sort of thing to happen. I admit, it sounds a touch exaggerated (Did corrupt cops steal D Laurier's couch when they took everything he owned?) but certainly not impossible or even improbable. Especially if it is in a small town.
EDIT: Looked it up (http://fstdt.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=pg&thread=1310&page=2#43146). His full story seems to...strain credulity.
D was asked multiple time for details other than the "poetic" over the top rant on it. Every time D promptly dodged, disappeared, or stop responding to anyone that asked. Nothing in the story made sense and was so over the top most everyone dismissed it as a poe thread and promptly died because of lack of any response from the OP.
Is that the institution itself, though, or is it the most obvious manifestation of a racist and violent society? This is a legitmate question: my personal opinion is that society itself is racist and violent, and that sentiment is codified and supported by the system; i.e., if society wasn't racist and violent, our police force wouldn't be that way.I agree, if society wasn't racist and violent, then any police force probably wouldn't be. But I don't think society will ever become non-racist and non-violent under capitalism (but whatever, another debate).
No, but D Laurier did ("the only good pig is a dead pig") and then said you agreed with that argument.I said I broadly agree with D Laurier, but fine: I do not wish death upon every police officer.
So it isn't the fault of the institution, it's the fault of society. And without the police system, there would be chaos, and a lot of that chaos would be racially-motivated violence, because a lot of humans are bastards who would love to kill the brown people if not for those things like laws.Huh, are you saying that is what I'm implying or are you saying that is what will happen. If the former, then yes and no, and if the latter then I would disagree.
"Broadly agree" usually means that the individual agrees with the overall view being presented, without necessarily agreeing with every specific point being made.Yeah, this is what I meant.
You might want to use a better word choice, then. Saying you broadly agree with someone generally means you agree with everything they're saying; or at least that's how I and most likely others interpreted it.
Since, you know, "broad" means "wide".
Nice, and I mentioned Hitler where exactly?
Is there any actual evidence that the story is false? Sad as it is to say, it is not unheard of for this sort of thing to happen. I admit, it sounds a touch exaggerated (Did corrupt cops steal D Laurier's couch when they took everything he owned?) but certainly not impossible or even improbable. Especially if it is in a small town.
EDIT: Looked it up (http://fstdt.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=pg&thread=1310&page=2#43146). His full story seems to...strain credulity.
D was asked multiple time for details other than the "poetic" over the top rant on it. Every time D promptly dodged, disappeared, or stop responding to anyone that asked. Nothing in the story made sense and was so over the top most everyone dismissed it as a poe thread and promptly died because of lack of any response from the OP.
Sorry but no, I was not "asked" for "details". I was dogpiled and browbeat with personal attacks, insults (some so deeply personal and malicious that I COULDNT respond without smashing my monitor), and bizzare attempts to insinuate that I was a neo nazi of some sort, or that I somehow bought into the notion of some "jewish conspiracy" rubish.
I didnt "dodge" or "dissapear", I was driven off the site by a small group of people who chased me across multiple threads for the sole purpose of harrassing me. I'm pretty sure you were one of those people.
There were whole pages of personal attacks posted. Whole pages of nothing but personal attacks. Most of them were profoundly over the top in their sadism and maliciousness.
I couldnt post a comment about the weather without getting 2 or 3 solid pages of personal attacks thrown at me.
So it isn't the fault of the institution, it's the fault of society. And without the police system, there would be chaos, and a lot of that chaos would be racially-motivated violence, because a lot of humans are bastards who would love to kill the brown people if not for those things like laws.Huh, are you saying that is what I'm implying or are you saying that is what will happen. If the former, then yes and no, and if the latter then I would disagree.
my personal opinion is that society itself is racist and violent, and that sentiment is codified and supported by the system; i.e., if society wasn't racist and violent, our police force wouldn't be that way.
@QueenofHearts: Around here I've heard they can arrest you for refusing to let them search your car. Like I said before, I want to beat the shit out of people like that.
Unless you don't live in the United States, you've heard wrong. Unless they have reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, they can not search your vehicle. Even if they have reasonable suspicion you've committed a crime, for them to search your vehicle they must have some basis for determining they will find evidence that you committed said crime.
For example, if someone driving under the influence and takes a field sobriety test and fails, then the officers can search the car for alcohol and if they find anything else they can charge the person for that. However, and I'm using the case of Gant v. Arizona, if they arrest someone for driving on a suspended license, there is no evidence that they can find in that car to use against the person in court because they can find no physical evidence that he was driving without a license. So if they search that vehicle and find cocaine, it is a violation of the 4th Amendment and that evidence is inadmissible, and therefore the case is lost.
EDIT: a bit of legal advice, refuse consent to all searches and say you're doing so out of principle (as I say "I have nothing to hide, but I refuse to consent to any searches"). If officers have met the criteria for a search, they'll perform one anyways, and you have nothing to gain by just willy nilly letting an officer search your possessions.
And you still haven't shown how you inferred Hitler's jack-booted thugs.
Nice, and I mentioned Hitler where exactly?
Do you understand English?
" declaring or implying"
I see. However, I racist violence still happens with the police around, as for increasing, I guess. there are many arguements against the idea that nationalising industries is automatically a good thing, and while I agree with some of them, keeping the police under the control of the state (over which we have nominal control) would obviously be better htan say if the state (as we know) was entirely removed and corporations were allowed to run completely unfetterd (this may seem unconnected, but even without the state, businesses would need to protect ther property righs, and so a type of privatised police would arise).So it isn't the fault of the institution, it's the fault of society. And without the police system, there would be chaos, and a lot of that chaos would be racially-motivated violence, because a lot of humans are bastards who would love to kill the brown people if not for those things like laws.Huh, are you saying that is what I'm implying or are you saying that is what will happen. If the former, then yes and no, and if the latter then I would disagree.
First sentence is "I agree with you, this is the general idea," and the second sentence is, "However, we can't get rid of the police because..."
Sorry, that was a poorly worded post.
And you still haven't shown how you inferred Hitler's jack-booted thugs.
Nice, and I mentioned Hitler where exactly?
Do you understand English?
" declaring or implying"
A man was murdered.
Can we agree on this?
If you haven't noticed how through D's posts that you agree with yet, then I don't think you really know what you're agreeing with.
Making cops out to be the worst human scum on the planet which would rape/kill anyone just because....sounds like Hitler's wet dream to me.
If we stop (questioning the and juging the) police agencies (, they) will be more willing to look at themselves critically and learn from situations.
If you haven't noticed how through D's posts that you agree with yet, then I don't think you really know what you're agreeing with.
Making cops out to be the worst human scum on the planet which would rape/kill anyone just because....sounds like Hitler's wet dream to me.
A man was murdered.
Can we agree on this?
No, we can't, because murder implies he was unjustly killed. Seeing that there is still a lot of confusion and difference between two stories, agreeing it's murder just slaps a guilty verdict.
A man was killed, yes
A man was murdered, not yet
If you haven't noticed how through D's posts that you agree with yet, then I don't think you really know what you're agreeing with.
Making cops out to be the worst human scum on the planet which would rape/kill anyone just because....sounds like Hitler's wet dream to me.
I said I broadly agree with D Laurier, which as others pointed out, does not mean I agree with every single point made, just the general outline. Also, if you did not notice, I did mention (twice) that I don't want to see all cops dead. As for cops being the worst scum on the earth, I have no idea the hell that is anything like Hitler's wet dreams, but keep the references coming.
I do not agree with, or understand, your position...
The way I see it, the thread breaks down as such, Laurier saying kill the police (which, though I disagree with, I feel he is entitled to say after his experiences, others may disagree), a few others saying "police need more oversight/regulations," and the rest (incorrectly) saying that the second group agrees with the first's comment about "killing pigs."
EDIT: And I want to bring attention to thisQuote from: MnickersonIf we stop (questioning the and juging the) police agencies (, they) will be more willing to look at themselves critically and learn from situations.
Does ANYBODY believe this is a good idea?
Questioning the the polices' actions is a good thing, hating them before hand is not.
The officers involved should be put on desk duty while an investigation led by the State Attorney's office is conducted. Also we need to stop magnifying and demonizing the police if it is found that they could have handled the situations better. If we stop doing that police agencies will be more willing to look at themselves critically and learn from situations.
EDIT: And I want to bring attention to thisQuote from: MnickersonIf we stop (questioning the and juging the) police agencies (, they) will be more willing to look at themselves critically and learn from situations.
Does ANYBODY believe this is a good idea?
What the fuck? The actual quote is:Questioning the the polices' actions is a good thing, hating them before hand is not.
The officers involved should be put on desk duty while an investigation led by the State Attorney's office is conducted. Also we need to stop magnifying and demonizing the police if it is found that they could have handled the situations better. If we stop doing that police agencies will be more willing to look at themselves critically and learn from situations.
Which is a problematic statement, but not nearly as nuts as you made it out to be. His actual point is that if we stop demonizing them, they'll learn, which makes no sense because one doesn't necessarily follow the other, but it isn't calling for a lack of oversight or what have you.
I'm sorry for that. I tried to paraphrase it and keep it as accurate as I could to keep the point I was making parsimonious, next time I'll avoid paraphrasing. I did not intentionally distort what he was trying to say, but, again, next time I will add the full. That said, I really don't buy into his point that if public attention isn't on police, they'll clean up their act. That's like saying if we get rid of the EPA, companies will examine themselves better and not pollute as much.
I read Nickerson's comment as meaning that we should neither raise the police to demi-god status (magnifying) nor should we make them out to be monsters (demonizing), as going too far in either direction only further* discourages departments from taking an honest look at themselves.
Of course, I could be misinterpreting his post.
In fairness, there are cases where one department is heavily corrupted, often because the higher-ups in charge have allowed a sort of gang mentality to form amongst the officers working there. The decent cops tend to be pushed out as "rats", while those who get onboard with the corruption find themselves being rewarded with bribes, promotions, etc.
Of course, one bad cop doesn't automatically indicate that an entire department has gone rotten, but it's not always a set of isolated incidents, either.
My posts weren't a criticism of what you said, Shane. Just commenting on the overall discussion.Ah. Fairy nuff.
The interview with Democracy Now where Kenneth Chamberlain Jr. breaks down crying is completely heartbreaking.
eta: Having now read the thread, I see that interview hasn't been posted.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny
I can only characterize taking the word of police as breathlessly naive. There's a recording of the shooting. The lawyer and the son have seen it/heard it and sued the police to released it to the public, the police refuse to let the public have it. They freaking call him a n--ger while they're murdering him.
My posts weren't a criticism of what you said, Shane. Just commenting on the overall discussion.Ah. Fairy nuff.The interview with Democracy Now where Kenneth Chamberlain Jr. breaks down crying is completely heartbreaking.
eta: Having now read the thread, I see that interview hasn't been posted.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny
I can only characterize taking the word of police as breathlessly naive. There's a recording of the shooting. The lawyer and the son have seen it/heard it and sued the police to released it to the public, the police refuse to let the public have it. They freaking call him a n--ger while they're murdering him.
No one was saying to do that either. If they were, I wouldn't say to investigate fully so we aren't taking anyone's word as gospel without finding the facts.