The Ugliness Of What Police Unions Stand Up For
Here's one example -- from a letter from a police union. WaPo's Sarah Larimer included this in a piece, "Police union: Miami chief's statements on Eric Garner's death 'do not reflect the views' of local officers."
The chief felt something indictment-worthy had gone on. The money shot from the police union's letter:
"Tackling Mr. Garner may have also caused him to not be able to breathe," the letter reads. "We also feel that Mr. Garner was not placed in a chokehold. The fact that he states eleven times that he can't breathe proves he was actually breathing."
I thought these two were just as good...
Mr. Garner stated “Every time you see me, you try to arrest me. I’m tired of it. It stops today.”
This clearly is resisting.
NO. This clearly is a man stating his contempt for the way he had been treated before. Contempt =/= "resisting"
Once Mr. Garner was on the floor, he continued to resist by not placing his hands behind his back.
Let someone tackle you to the ground, where you end up face down. Where do your hands naturally end up, officer Fife?
Just come out and admit what you all think.
"As police officers, we are better people than the rest of you, and our lives matter more than yours. Submit and there will be no problems."
Civil rights? Respect? That ship has not only sailed, it has sunk.
drcos at December 12, 2014 6:04 AM
Let someone tackle you to the ground, where you end up face down. Where do your hands naturally end up, officer Fife?
Exactly.
The first arrest I saw in person (student protest) involved two police. One was standing up with his foot pressing into the protestor's back, holding him down. The protestor's hands were trapped beneath the weight of himself and the officer. And both police were shouting "Put your hands behind your back!" And we were all standing around yelling back, "He can't! He physically can't!"
sofar at December 12, 2014 7:47 AM
I love the way the union rep states that something is 'proved' (he can speak, therefore, he can breathe), as though saying it makes it so.
The fact that he can speak proves that he can breathe out. Not that he can breathe in. And you gotta have both.
As to the contradictory instructions - this is not a bug, but a feature. In court, the officer can say 'Mr X resisted by failing to follow my lawful instructions, causing me to strike/pepper spray/Tase/shoot him'. And his testimony will be (literally) truthful. The fact that it may have been physically impossible to comply will never be raised, because (until the advent of universal video) there's no evidence on which to challenge what the officer says.
'Down on your knees! Hands in the air! On the ground! Turn around!' You can't do all those things at once - you can't do more than about 2 at once. But the officer can say 'I told him to get down on the ground, and he did not comply.' And that's all he needs.
In the Garner case, it's still not clear to me on what basis the police restrained Mr Garner. They had no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime (enough to detain him) or probable cause (enough to arrest him) so they had no grounds to lay hands on him at all. I notice that there has been a lot of very careful wording, deliberately designed to confuse reporting - many reports state as fact that Mr Garner was selling cigarette illegally, although I have not read any police statement to this effect - they make much of the fact that he was known to sell cigarettes illegally, leaving reporters to bridge the gap for them.
Why doesn't somebody FOIA the police officer's reports and see how they justify laying hands on him at all?
llater,
llamas
llamas at December 12, 2014 8:46 AM
Miami cops, you say? As they say, read the link but summarized: they sent 377 rounds of ammunition down range into a disabled vehicle, killing the two occupants.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 12, 2014 9:58 AM
Geez - do read that link from IRA-Darth. Fire discipline? Any kind of discipline? Keystone Kops with real guns.
Every officer there ought to be convicted of - is idiocy a crime? Certainly banned from ever serving on any police force anywhere ever again.
a_random_guy at December 12, 2014 10:35 AM
As others have pointed out the often repeated myth: "If you can speak you can breathe" is incorrect. A veteran police officer debunks that myth complete with proofs that you can test yourself while sitting at home here: http://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2odvre/the_pernicious_myth_of_if_you_can_speak_you_can/
Mike Hunter at December 15, 2014 2:09 PM
The police have been at war with the rest of us for some time now.
Now that a small minority of us are beginning to shoot back, they may want to sue for peace while they can still get it.
jdgalt at February 23, 2015 10:36 PM
Leave a comment