Posted on 01/16/2015 6:08:45 AM PST by null and void
No, the two officers shown repeatedly kicking the arrestee pled guilty and were not on trial.
This article is intentionally very misleading.
Ok. Thank you. Was the last officer who ran up and put in his kick the one on trial?
Yeah.
Thanks.....it kinda looked like his kick was an “obligatory solidarity kick”....
Do you realize this headline is false?
The two officers that “repeatedly stomped suspect “ were not on trial.
I don’t know anything about this blogger, but I am curious about why he chose a still from the vid that makes the stomper look white.
The link to the “Dail Mail” story that someone postedhere shows a photo of Higgins that clearly shows he is black.
(This is not a funny situation, but I have to admit that I giggled when I read under said photo the caption, which ended with “...he violated a man’s civil rights by helping to beat him with two other officers as he lay tasered and face down on the ground in 2011”. He looks like a powerful guy, but I wonder how he beat the guy by using 2 officers.
I don’t know the blogger either, just a story that came over my transom.
I thought only one of the cops pled not guilty, and he was the only one acquitted.
The picture doesn’t show what the cop is stomping, it looks like he is stomping on the scumbag, but he could be stomping on the scumbag’s hand holding a weapon. I don’t know, so I can’t make a judgment on this one.
But let me get this straight, if we have it on video, then “presumption” does not apply? Or is it only if we have cops on video that it doesn’t apply? And how good does the video have to be, better than bigfoot videos?
The black market and government markets have benefitted tremendously from the WOD, but the rest of us not so much.
The litany of evils (as a result of government attempts to regulate inanimate objects) against a once free people is piled to the ceiling.
If you see somethin on a videl, you can generally proceed on the assumption that what you were watching was accurate. The fact that he was on the ground and may have had a weapon is a good point, and could excuse the action. On the other hand if he had a wespon, would you it not be more natural to seize it?
What on the video may be “accurate”, but also present imagery thats open to interpretation.
For instance in the Garner case the video showed the officer wrapping his arm around Garner’s neck. One interpretation was that this was a forbidden chokehold, using the forearm to collapse the windpipe and render the recipient unconscious due to lack of oxygen.
Another interpretation was that it was a permissable non-choke submission hold called a seatbelt using the upper arm to apply pressure to the side of the neck to restrain and force the recipient to the ground.
So one “accurate” video, two possible interpretations.
So it was up to the forensics to show what happened. The forensics (autopsy on Garner’s corpse) showed that it was a seatbelt, not choke hold, that was employed.
Perspective, point of view and depth perception can all be manipulated on a video.
I don’t know what would be natural in the situation, since I wasn’t there, and I haven’t seen the whole situation.
What or why or how - I don’t know. These things were all presented to the jury. Like the OJ jury, they can definitely get it wrong. But we either accept the verdict, or destroy the system.
From my experience of sitting on a San Francisco Grand Jury that handled among others police brutality cases the DA’s office routinely assigned the most green, inexperienced and incompetent ADA’s to police brutality cases. In the case I sat on there were 2 ADA’s present. The clutzy inexperienced one did the presentation while the second one sat in the back of the room taking notes.
When it came to give final summation ADA #1 made his summation then ADA #2 made a summation that essentially was 180 degrees counter to the first ADA summation. We were surprised and confused so no indictment was delivered. All it took was for a majority of jurors to say no.
The DA’s office also stretched the case out for months making it hard to keep facts straight in your mind. That's how it can be done to have the most egregious cases of brutality go away.
“I give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun”, *that* Connecticut cop.,
Have not heard that expression in a while. I wonder how many of the young people know the meaning much less the origin of the phrase “came over my transom”.
Back in the 1990s I was teaching in a school that had been around quite a long time — close to 100 years. (So, yeah, we had lots of transoms. :) The teacher who had preceded me was a bit of a slob, apparently, so I had quite a task in cleaning out and organizing the lab prep room. Among the sundry items in that room was a glass cream bottle, the kind used in home milk delivery up until the early 1960s. It was quite interesting for me to poll the young teachers about its function. None of them knew, of course. Why would they?
No we have to go we it the verdict but that doesn’t mean not taking the steps I mentioned to avoid the chance of conflict of interest.
Not sure I buy the distinction between the two holds. The net result is a guy was choked to death for selling an illegal cigarette, which I believe was wrong. The police have the discretion to determine what offenses are really worth bothering with. This was a ticketable offense and should have been treated as such. And I heard that there was collusion beteen the Prosecutor and the police in this case.
I find your terms acceptable, but be advised that my shot placement may not be accurate enough to insure that I only remove the left one.
People are not normally arrested when issued a summons, no?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.