I'm pretty surprised about this. I have not watched the video again and don't remember the details. A choke hold, improper police procedure, on a man who came to police attention because he was selling illegal cigarettes on the street. I agree with the statement of a New York area congressman that police body-cams (President Obama's proposal recently.) are not the solution (Good thing, though.).
As I see it the problem begins with why white police officers come into contact with Black people in the first place. Look, prosecutors, even some cops, will admit police contact with Black people is often pretextual. That's what "driving while black is." The police look for some reason to stop a Black person, especially a man. Then, if the citizen objects the police officer can pick from a smorgasbord of potential charges, arrest him, and use whatever force is necessary to effectuate the arrest!
So, the problem starts with how and why the police-citizen encounter begins. Dude, dudette, if you think I, an old, white homo would get stopped by a police officer on suspicion of selling illegal cigarettes then there's something besides tobacco you're smoking. Picture this: Old white male lawyer in his suit with files under his arm walking to the courthouse stops and cells a cigarette to somebody. Thwap, thwap, thwap, thwap, thwap, the Tobacco Patrol descends? Not in a million years. I could be selling weapons of mass destruction, I wouldn't get a sniff from the police. I don't look guilty, see?
This was also one of the most important facts to me in the Trayvon Martin case. Walking while Black was the only reason Trayvon came to the attention of para-cop George Zimmerman. Think Zimmerman would have followed me? Now, as I remember the facts, Trayvon saw Zimmerman following him, hid, and then jumped him--and you can't do that! Trayvon sure enough got some good licks in on Zimmerman for that insult but the point is Zimmerman got his ass beat and Trayvon got killed because Zimmerman tailed Trayvon on suspicion of Walking while Black.
Police officers have it better even than George Zimmerman had it. You are not allowed to resist even an unlawful arrest. ? No! you are not. You are not allowed to resist even a violent unlawful arrest unless your resistance is necessary to protect you from death or great bodily harm. So, guess what sometimes happens: A police officer makes a pretextual stop of a person and then initiates physical contact, "Hey, you fucking punk, get off the street!" PUSH--to provoke the person into pushing back. Once he does that, that's the crime of battery on a law enforcement officer. Nice, huh?
When it first became clear to me how Zimmerman came into contact with Tryavon I remember thinking, I think I even wrote this, I remember thinking, "Man, I would be pissed!" I would not have laid in wait for Zimmerman as at least I remember Trayvon doing but if that fat, cop-wannabe, mo-fo had come up to me, "Excuse me sir, we have a problem with..." There is some, slim, but some, chance I would have gotten physical with Zimmerman right off the bat. I certainly would have emptied my vocabulary of four letter words (I have a pretty good vocabulary.) and my lungs at him. And that would have led to us getting physical.
It is very insulting, or it must be very insulting (Every time, every frigging time I have been suspected of wrong-doing by the police, I have been guilty. Never got away with anything! Pisses me off.), I say, it must be very insulting, to be suspected of wrong-doing on the basis of nothing! And to be suspected of wrong-doing on the basis of Breathing while Melanin-Enhanced?...Problem. That's going to be a problem. We would have a BIGGGG problem.
By contrast, as I understand the facts, of the police-citizen encounter in the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Missouri viz: I'm walking in the middle of the street. End viz...Yeah, a cop is going to "Excuse me, sir..." even if you're Melanin-Challenged, ancient, and dressed nattily.
The second thing I want to say on this right now is on the grand jury system. In Ferguson, as it is in my jurisdiction, the District Attorney can either make the charging decision himself or let the grand jury do it. In Ferguson the D.A. sent it to the grand jury because there were questions about his ability to make a fair decision himself. In New York City I do not know if that is the case or if the only way you can be charged in NYC is via grand jury...Come to think of it, I believe it is, I think that's how they do it there, I don't think the prosecutor can charge him or her self. If that's the case then never mind.
If that's not the case, if the prosecutor has the discretion, the problem with sending a case to a grand jury is you can get a runaway grand jury. They can indict a ham sandwich or not indict O.J. Simpson. The prosecutor is trained in the law and is in the unique position of representing all the people in his/her jurisdiction, the accused and the victim and the cops, and, and, and. In the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor is in a better position to make an informed, dispassionate, legal, and fair charging decision than is a grand jury.
But not in police killings! The--completely natural and understandable--incestuous relationship between prosecutors and police officers compromises prosecutors decisions when of a sudden they have to turn around and investigate and perhaps charge a police officer who maybe just last week they worked with on another case. Better to have a grand jury do it if those are the only two alternatives. Best, imo, would be to have an outside prosecutor's office make the charging decision and handle the case through trial. That's what they did in the Trayvon Martin case (At least the charges were filed.), that's what the Feds are going to do now in the Eric Garner case.
Over and out.
As I see it the problem begins with why white police officers come into contact with Black people in the first place. Look, prosecutors, even some cops, will admit police contact with Black people is often pretextual. That's what "driving while black is." The police look for some reason to stop a Black person, especially a man. Then, if the citizen objects the police officer can pick from a smorgasbord of potential charges, arrest him, and use whatever force is necessary to effectuate the arrest!
So, the problem starts with how and why the police-citizen encounter begins. Dude, dudette, if you think I, an old, white homo would get stopped by a police officer on suspicion of selling illegal cigarettes then there's something besides tobacco you're smoking. Picture this: Old white male lawyer in his suit with files under his arm walking to the courthouse stops and cells a cigarette to somebody. Thwap, thwap, thwap, thwap, thwap, the Tobacco Patrol descends? Not in a million years. I could be selling weapons of mass destruction, I wouldn't get a sniff from the police. I don't look guilty, see?
This was also one of the most important facts to me in the Trayvon Martin case. Walking while Black was the only reason Trayvon came to the attention of para-cop George Zimmerman. Think Zimmerman would have followed me? Now, as I remember the facts, Trayvon saw Zimmerman following him, hid, and then jumped him--and you can't do that! Trayvon sure enough got some good licks in on Zimmerman for that insult but the point is Zimmerman got his ass beat and Trayvon got killed because Zimmerman tailed Trayvon on suspicion of Walking while Black.
Police officers have it better even than George Zimmerman had it. You are not allowed to resist even an unlawful arrest. ? No! you are not. You are not allowed to resist even a violent unlawful arrest unless your resistance is necessary to protect you from death or great bodily harm. So, guess what sometimes happens: A police officer makes a pretextual stop of a person and then initiates physical contact, "Hey, you fucking punk, get off the street!" PUSH--to provoke the person into pushing back. Once he does that, that's the crime of battery on a law enforcement officer. Nice, huh?
When it first became clear to me how Zimmerman came into contact with Tryavon I remember thinking, I think I even wrote this, I remember thinking, "Man, I would be pissed!" I would not have laid in wait for Zimmerman as at least I remember Trayvon doing but if that fat, cop-wannabe, mo-fo had come up to me, "Excuse me sir, we have a problem with..." There is some, slim, but some, chance I would have gotten physical with Zimmerman right off the bat. I certainly would have emptied my vocabulary of four letter words (I have a pretty good vocabulary.) and my lungs at him. And that would have led to us getting physical.
It is very insulting, or it must be very insulting (Every time, every frigging time I have been suspected of wrong-doing by the police, I have been guilty. Never got away with anything! Pisses me off.), I say, it must be very insulting, to be suspected of wrong-doing on the basis of nothing! And to be suspected of wrong-doing on the basis of Breathing while Melanin-Enhanced?...Problem. That's going to be a problem. We would have a BIGGGG problem.
By contrast, as I understand the facts, of the police-citizen encounter in the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Missouri viz: I'm walking in the middle of the street. End viz...Yeah, a cop is going to "Excuse me, sir..." even if you're Melanin-Challenged, ancient, and dressed nattily.
The second thing I want to say on this right now is on the grand jury system. In Ferguson, as it is in my jurisdiction, the District Attorney can either make the charging decision himself or let the grand jury do it. In Ferguson the D.A. sent it to the grand jury because there were questions about his ability to make a fair decision himself. In New York City I do not know if that is the case or if the only way you can be charged in NYC is via grand jury...Come to think of it, I believe it is, I think that's how they do it there, I don't think the prosecutor can charge him or her self. If that's the case then never mind.
If that's not the case, if the prosecutor has the discretion, the problem with sending a case to a grand jury is you can get a runaway grand jury. They can indict a ham sandwich or not indict O.J. Simpson. The prosecutor is trained in the law and is in the unique position of representing all the people in his/her jurisdiction, the accused and the victim and the cops, and, and, and. In the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor is in a better position to make an informed, dispassionate, legal, and fair charging decision than is a grand jury.
But not in police killings! The--completely natural and understandable--incestuous relationship between prosecutors and police officers compromises prosecutors decisions when of a sudden they have to turn around and investigate and perhaps charge a police officer who maybe just last week they worked with on another case. Better to have a grand jury do it if those are the only two alternatives. Best, imo, would be to have an outside prosecutor's office make the charging decision and handle the case through trial. That's what they did in the Trayvon Martin case (At least the charges were filed.), that's what the Feds are going to do now in the Eric Garner case.
Over and out.
