<p>To further explain- I’m trying to help kids be sucessful in school and I have seen the cumulative effects of negative treatment on kids of any background. </p>
<p>If a child has experienced discrimination in a store, a school, or anywhere, this is a negative experience. Kids also don’t have the cognitive perspective of adults and so may connect two negative experiences even if they are not related. So, while I was concerned about the kids fidgety behavior, they may see this differently. </p>
<p>And that would concern me because it would not be helpful to them. </p>
<p>This is so wrong. The entire thing was clearly rigged. Don’t people usually get immunity when they have some information that only they know, that is essential to making the case against a defendant? WE HAVE VIDEO. No one disputes what happened on that street. </p>
<p>People are granted immunity in an effort to get them to tell the truth without fear of prosecution themselves.</p>
<p>Marie and emily, to quote someone else’s text, do this:</p>
<p>[<em>quote]This is the text I want to appear in a quote box. Hi marie1234 and emilybee![</em>/quote]</p>
<p>But remove the asterisks after the square brackets. You’ll get this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you just put quote marks around someone else’s text, or nothing at all, other posters have difficulty understanding what you are responding to and what you point you are making.</p>
<p>“If you just put quote marks around someone else’s text, or nothing at all, other posters have difficulty understanding what you are responding to and what you point you are making.”</p>
<p>Sorry, CF. I can’t be bothered with that. If this site had a quote feature I would use it. </p>
<p>If someone can’t understand I am quoting someone (and I rarely forget to use quotes marks) they can just stop reading my posts. </p>
<p>Problem police officers are not necessarily racist; they may be prone to excessive force or other abusive practices in an equal opportunity manner. (Although what may be racist does seem to get people a lot angrier than generic equal opportunity abuse.)</p>
<p>It is also possible for black people to be racist against black people. For example, some studies checking on how likely taxi drivers are to pick up people waving them for rides found that *black<a href=“as%20well%20as%20non-black”>/i</a> taxi drivers were less willing to pick up black passengers than white passengers.</p>
<p>From a prosecution standpoint, no indictment in this case is pretty typical because there were other officers present and no prosecutor would ask for an indictment of all of them. The standards for indicting police in their duties is higher than for civilians, which makes sense. That doesn’t excuse the brutality or even being physical with this guy in the first place. The right answer in the traditional court system is a suit for wrongful death - because that forces the police to change tactics by costing them money - and punishment of the officer(s) involved. That can and probably in this case should include dismissal. I’d bet the union would fight that but I think showing an actual chokehold and then claiming it was police procedure is something that could stand as grounds for dismissal.</p>
<p>I would say this case differs from Ferguson because that case involved a single officer and mixed evidence that should best have been sorted out in a trial. In this case, on the other hand, the deciding factor was likely the presence of other officers and their role in what they all perceived as a police action. I’m speaking procedurally not about morality.</p>
<p>Murder turns on intent. Do people think he intended to kill the suspect while supervisors and fellow officers stood around watching? Excessive force is a different question, of course. </p>
<p>CC should have a quote feature. But it doesn’t.</p>
<p>But whatever the features of CC, it seems to me that people posting on this busy thread ought to be discussing things in good faith, attempting to be clear in what we say. We ought to realize that our time as a writer is not more valuable than the time of our many readers. Sparing oneself inconvenience by knowingly and deliberately posting things that confuse other posters does not seem to me to be acting in good faith. </p>
<p>“Sparing oneself inconvenience by knowingly and deliberately posting things that confuse other posters does not seem to me to be acting in good faith.”</p>
<p>I always use quotes and very, very rarely forget. </p>
<p>I’m sorry if that confuses people. It shouldn’t. </p>
<p>And no, I am not going to change how I do things. The other way is a PITA, imo. </p>
<p>When this site starts having a quote feature, like every other message board in the world, I will use it. They have inconvenienced me by choosing not to have one on this site and I refuse to use the code simply because they happen to think quote features get abused and have chosen to make it more difficult for people to quote. </p>
<p>I really can’t speak to racism because I have no insight into the cops’ minds. It does strike that what all these cases have in common is (1) inadequate training and (2) poorly defined rules of engagement.</p>
<p>In the case of Garner, I wonder what the heck all those cops were supposed to do when a very large suspect refused to cooperate. He was unarmed, so they couldn’t shoot him. I didn’t see any Tasers, but of course Tasers are fraught with their own problems. The chokehold was apparently illegal, and it’s clear from these events why it’s illegal.</p>
<p>So what were they left with? I don’t have the training, so I can’t say. I suspect the cops lacked the training also. Why did they lack it? Why were they ordered into a situation for which they were unprepared?</p>
<p>In the case of Ferguson, I wonder why that cop thought it was a good idea to engage a suspect from the interior of his car. If that was SOP, why was it so? Clearly it was not a good plan, especially since the cop was on his own. I’m sure most of you have been pulled over for a moving violation. I’m sure the cop did not think you would be violent, but you know darned well the cop was ready to handle you if you did something weird. The techniques for approaching vehicles have been clearly defined for a long time. So why was Wilson not similarly prepared?</p>
<p>In the case of Tamir Rice, I understand why the cop felt he had to shoot a suspect who was apparently drawing on him. But why did the cop engage him from an indefensible position in the first place? As far as I could tell, there was no one else around. Were there not alternate strategies that could have been tried and exhausted before getting in the kid’s face?</p>
<p>What if you put attribution tags, Emily? That would make your posts much clearer without your having to type annoying control sequences. Like this:</p>
<p>Cardinal Biggles said, “She must be made of sterner stuff. Fetch the comfy chair!”</p>