<p>I’m curious what you guys think of Guiliani’s tenure as NYC’s mayor. He is credited with cleaning up the city in terms of crime, and murders across all demographics plummeted markedly. However, his police department was also heavily criticized for police brutality, and accused of targeting minorities. </p>
<p>I am posting this here so as not to clutter up the new thread. I brought this up once before but my reason for reprising it is what a “clean” example it is. This took place in my city of Seattle. It took place in the sunny mid day with pedestrians in the vicinity. There was no prior engagement with the victim - no altercation, crime, questioning or 911 call. He is not in the vicinity of some other disturbance. He only had the bad luck to cross the street with traffic using the crosswalk in front of the officers car. The victim is not at all imposing. He is a small 50 year old First Nations wood carver. There is dash cam video and audio from multiple angles (notice how the presence of the camera and audio does not phase the shooter at all). Officer Birk testified that the victim turned and took an aggressive stance wielding his knife. He acted that out in testimony. The autopsy showed that the victim was shot 4 times in the back and right side. The shooter was not indicted because the majority of jurors on the grand jury believed that Officer Birk felt threatened . . . not that he actually WAS threatened but felt threatened. The video is chilling. </p>
<p>I bring this up to demonstrate that even with video and no extenuating circumstances to cloud the case it is still possible for an officer to shoot a person who is just walking down the street and not be indicted. I dare you to watch the video then imagine yourself or your kid walking across the crosswalk holding that same small knife and piece of wood. Would he have jumped out of his cruiser and shot you dead on the sidewalk? If not why not? When I try to do that my answer is, “Because cops don’t jump out and shoot middle aged, middle class white women at lunch hour. It’s completely ridiculous and implausible. I could cross the street with a Henckel knife and be perfectly safe. He’d just think I was at the Macy’s Home Sale.” </p>
<p>The problem with this thinking is that in our minds we can jump from that incredulity to the idea that the victim MUST have been guilty or they wouldn’t have been shot (or kicked or choked). Officers wouldn’t just shoot a person for walking across the street. Well . . . see for yourself.</p>
<p><a href=“[BirkAction.com] Composite video of officer Ian Birk shooting of John T. Williams - YouTube”>[BirkAction.com] Composite video of officer Ian Birk shooting of John T. Williams - YouTube;
<p>
</p>
<p>@Pennylane2011, IANAL, but the medical examiner’s report does not presume to determine whether the homicide is justifiable, just that the death was caused by the actions of a person, not by accident or illness.</p>
<p>In this case, I can’t imagine why there was no indictment. At least in St. Louis County, officials got in front of the story enough to explain, before and after the decision, what the exculpatory evidence was. I wasn’t looking for that here and assumed there wasn’t any. This one needs some explanation. </p>
<p>nobody agrees with this decision. There are no defenders in the media. </p>
<p>We just have a problem in this country and it really needs to be addressed. The police cannot continue to use deadly force on unarmed petty criminals. It’s not right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. A lot of us do. And going back to Ferguson, this is my problem with the Darren Wilson case. I just don’t believe that shooting Michael Brown DEAD was the only option. I don’t believe that the entire time he was firing at him he was scared for his life–any more than I believe these other recent cases offered the police only one way out.</p>
<p>I like the idea of stun guns. And cameras.</p>
<p>as long as the footage is sent to an independent third party.</p>
<p>The Feds were confronted on Bundy’s ranch by multiple people with ak-47s, aimed directly at them. One of these armed people was the guy who later murdered a bunch of people at a store. No one was killed at the Bundy ranch. The Feds used restraint and common sense, and they are much better trained. </p>
<p>In these shootings of black men , the operating theory is “they” are all armed, dangerous thugs. Little training, no restraint. And we get death after death of unarmed black men. </p>
<p>If it’s legal for the police to kill when they feel threatened, why do they feel threatened by a 12-year black kid, but not by a middle aged white guy pointing an AK-47 directly at them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Meanwhile, crime went down just as much in most other major cities. It went down everywhere. Some people say reduction in lead was the cause.</p>
<p>“nobody agrees with this decision. There are no defenders in the media.”</p>
<p>You obviously are not watching Fox News. I turned it on just to see - and sure enough - there was Bernie Kerik saying that both Michael Brown and Eric Garner would be alive today if they hadn’t resisted arrest.</p>
<p>IIRC, he then went on to say something along the lines of people need to get over it. </p>
<p>I’m sure you can google and see the video. </p>
<p>No. true. I am not watching fox news as long as I am alive. I was talking about credible news sources. </p>
<p>^ Some people believe that Fox News is credible. And fair and balanced. </p>
<p>I watched Fox News. The words used were things like mistake, horrible, unthinkable, inconceivable. There is no approval at Fox News for this travesty. Fox News always finds someone to take the side against its hosts and anchors, even if they are tools. There is absolute horror across the right wing media and it would be dishonest or malicious to suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>Only reporting what Bernie Kerik said on Fox News and whoever the Fox person was didn’t argue with anything he said. </p>
<p><a href=“Bernie Kerik reacts to grand jury decision on Garner case”>Bernie Kerik reacts to grand jury decision on Garner case;
<p>
</p>
<p>How can one form an educated opinion about news coverage if you won’t tune in? Don’t you want to compare the extreme sides of the news coverage and jump into the CNN/MSNBC/Fox cesspools to measure how bad they can be? It is not different from wanting to read the NYTimes and the WSJ as a depature from the Economist. For every Hannity, there is a Wolf and an Anderson. You got to listen to them before you can judge what comes out of their mouth. </p>
<p>Fwiw, it might surprise many how divergent the opinions of the anchors are. For instance, what O Reilly and Juan Williams had to say might not fit the expected narrative. In fact, the rebirth of Juan Williams is quite amazing. One does not need to agree with him to respect where he comes from. </p>
<p>But heck, we all know that hearsay is more powerful! </p>
<p>The top story on foxnews.com right now is about states suing Obama over immigration reform.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have been thinking about the same thing. The Bundy situation was scary to me but the Feds were not intimidated by the presence of a bunch of heavily armed white people. What’s the difference?? Is it really about training, or is there something else?</p>
<p>"How can one form an educated opinion about news coverage if you won’t tune in? Don’t you want to compare the extreme sides of the news coverage and jump into the CNN/MSNBC/Fox cesspools to measure how bad they can be? "
Some people want to be informed and some people like to be comfortable. Personally, I am a news junkie and am incredibly fortunate to work right near an international newsstand. I read the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Staten Island Advance on dead trees every day. Online, I add the Christian Science Monitor, the daily news, the New York Post and the New York Law Journal. Instapundit, Powerline, Slate, Salon, National Review, Huffington Post, the Root and, of course, Real Clear Politics, as well. Plus blogs on the hard right and hard left. Hey, we all need a hobby!</p>
<p>"Be very passive to the police, show your hands, don’t reach for anything, don’t give any attitude, do not be threatening in any way.</p>
<p>“You are describing a police state, not a free state. I mean that literally.”</p>
<p>You’ve got to be kidding. That’s not a police state. That’s the precise advice I give my white-as-snow, upper-middle-class kids. </p>
<p>I do too. That doesn’t make it right.</p>
<p>We live in a mixed neighborhood and have a diverse family. My son’s friend group is diverse. When they come home after the sun sets or go to school before it rises, they all have hoodies on and I would defy anyone to know with a quick look who is white and who is not. I pray they never run into the wrong side of a cop.</p>