Police take to internet in defence of Dan

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-30323811

Eric Garner death: Police take to internet in defence of Daniel Pantaleo

After a New York City grand jury did not indict police officer Daniel Pantaleo for causing the death of Eric Garner, protesters headed to the streets, city officials went before the cameras and at least some police officers took to the internet.

On websites catering to the law enforcement community, the mood was largely angry and defensive - reflecting a community that sees itself as under siege by an unappreciative public.

On Thee Rant, a message board for New York Police Department officers, many posters expressed relief at the grand jury's decision and concern for backlash against fellow cops.

Although the users are anonymous, the site attempts to limit its membership to verified law enforcement personnel.

(continued)

[mistermack]

It's perfectly true that the US police are blatantly racist.
There is no way at all that they would have attacked a white man like that, in the same situation.
Everyone knows it. Especially the people on the street.

Their attitude seems to be, do what we say, immediately, or we have the right to kill you.
And actually, they are right in that, if you are black.

I'd like to see the figures for unarmed white men who get killed by cops.

[Seth]

It's perfectly true that the US police are blatantly racist.
There is no way at all that they would have attacked a white man like that, in the same situation.
Everyone knows it. Especially the people on the street.

Their attitude seems to be, do what we say, immediately, or we have the right to kill you.
And actually, they are right in that, if you are black.

I'd like to see the figures for unarmed white men who get killed by cops.

That's an obviously fallacious error of composition. You are proposing that because parts A, B, and C of the whole (P) have characteristics X, that therefore the whole, P, has those characteristics.

This is not to say that there are not racist cops. On the other hand there is no credible evidence before us that the officer who used the choke hold did so because the victim was black.

The actual fact is that a) the officer (imho) committed involuntary manslaughter by using a hold that is well-known to be extremely dangerous, and therefore qualifies as a use of deadly force against a suspect who was not posing a lethal threat that would justify the use of deadly force against him; b) the NYPD is (imho) guilty of the unlawful use of force by policy because the wrong to be avoided (selling a "loosie" on the street) does not qualify as an offense for which any sort of physical force should be authorized; and c) the State of New York is complicit and therefore culpable because it created a law prohibiting something that is simply not, and should not be a crime.

We have created a system of laws that makes it impossible for anyone to go through the day without breaking some law for which criminal prosecution is authorized, which means that everyone is at risk of being killed by the police because ANY law that authorizes the police to act is by its very nature created with the ultimate authority of the police to kill to enforce it.

There are more than 300,000 laws on the books in the US, mostly hidden away in obscure statutes that nobody knows about, that criminalize something that the police can eventually use lethal force to enforce.

There should be no more than a dozen such laws anywhere on earth. Everything else should be civil in nature and NO physical force of any kind should be permitted in their enforcement.

I don't care what anybody says or how they try to rationalize it, it is unconscionable and intolerable that a man is dead for the heinous crime of selling a single cigarette.

[Ian]

I'm getting really pissed at the NYPD. Another funeral and another occasion for loads of cops to turn their back to the mayor. Unprofessional jerks, every last one who turned.

Soldiers do not do that to anyone in their chain of command, from their company CO up to the President. Maybe standards of professional conduct are just drilled into them more, I don't know. If you're wearing a uniform, then you're expected to not disgrace it.

People whine about how the NYC Mayor disrespected them first; I don't see that, but even if he had, it is irrelevant. Suppose, while I was in the Navy, the Engineering Department of my ship felt disrespected by the Captain. What might happen if they all decided to turn their backs during an All Hands call, when the Captain addresses the crew? Serious punishment, that's what. If you're wearing a uniform, you don't disgrace it. There's no room on your uniform's sleeve for your heart. If you don't like someone in your chain of command, then you grit your teeth and complain about him in private.