I wish this were a joke. It isn't.

[CO. Hoosier]

The dean of the Columbia Law School has made this announcement to the school after the "non-indictments" in the Brown and Garner cases. I can't imagine what would prompt a law school dean to issue such a memo; and especially one from a prestigious Ivy League law school. The students need to know that as lawyers they don't get "trauma breaks" from life when a ruling goes against them, opposing counsel insults them, or a judge yells at them for not being prepared. Counseling? Relief from taking exams? Does anybody want a to hire a lawyer with this kind of training?.


Instead of yielding to the "injustice" or "trauma" of the non-indictments, I would use the non-indictments as a tool to make a student think about advocacy. I'd give my class (if I taught at Columbia) this assignment:


Assume you are the Assistant District Attorney in the Garner case. The District Attorney has asked your advice about whether to take the case to a second grand jury in order to obtain an indictment. Write a memo to the District Attorney urging that justice has been served and the case should not be again presented to different grand jury.

From the dean:

The grand juries' determinations to return non-indictments in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases have shaken the faith of some in the integrity of the grand jury system and in the law more generally. For some law students, particularly, though not only, students of color, this chain of events is all the more profound as it threatens to undermine a sense that the law is a fundamental pillar of society designed to protect fairness, due process and equality.


For these reasons, after consultation with students in the law school and with colleagues on the law faculty and in the administration, I am taking the following steps to assure our responsiveness and involvement in this particular moment:
- In recognition of the traumatic effects these events have had on some of the members of our community, Dean Greenberg-Kobrin and Yadira Ramos-Herbert, Director, Academic Counseling, have arranged to have Dr. Shirley Matthews, a trauma specialist, hold sessions next Monday and Wednesday for anyone interested in participating to discuss the trauma that recent events may have caused .


- Several members of the faculty have agreed to schedule special office hours next week to be available for students who would like support and/or would like to talk about the implications of the Brown and Garner non-indictments. These office hours will include:


Conrad Johnson - Monday, 12:00 - 2:00, Room 833
Olati Johnson - Monday, 12:00 - 4:00, Room 630
Susan Sturm - Wednesday, 2:15 - 3:15, Room 617
Katherine Franke - Monday, 1:00 - 3:00, Thursday, 9:00 - 11:00, Room 637


- I support the idea of an open community dialogue to discuss the concerns of students in the wake of recent events, and to share diverse and collective notions of injustice that these cases raise. I will encourage all members of our community to attend.


- The law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period. In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled.


- Several members of the faculty have agreed to work with students to develop a reading group, speaker series, and/or longitudinal teach-in next semester in which the group would explore a series of sessions where we educate ourselves and formulate a response to the implications, including racial meanings, of these non-indictments. In an effort to include the larger community in which we live and study, this work may include a collaboration with Columbia's Center for Justice and with the Schomberg Center.


In closing let me just add my hope that through these and other efforts all members of the Columbia Law School community can can come to have a greater sense of mutual support and trust.

This post was edited on 12/8 12:36 AM by CO. Hoosier

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You sure that's not a joke?


It's written like someone who's writing it for him in order to mock the hypersensitivity of many of today's liberals. Besides, the Brown and Garner case are very different. It's pretty easy to see why a grand jury didn't return an indictment for the Brown case. It's not so easy to see why that didn't happen for the Garner case. They'd never get murder from that, but negligent homicide seems like a possible indictable charge - though I'm not a lawyer, so maybe another charge would be more likely.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Time to clear things up a little.

First, when Garner was repeating over and over again "I can't breathe" there was no chokehold or neck hold being applied. One officer was holding his head down on the pavement, from the side. Others were keeping Garner on his side. We can't see what the others were doing. Keeping a subject on their side to apply handcuffs instead of face down is consistent with training to avoid positional asphyxia.

Second, Garner's series of "I can't breathe" statements were over a long enough period of time to indicate he actually was breathing.

Third, From what I know of how to arrest an uncooperative subject, I appears to me the cops followed their training. Brown had medical issues which the cops could not know about. The female African American supervisor on the scene was standing at Garner's feet observing the take down. She didn't seem to be alarmed about anything she was watching.

Fourth, All the officers who were on the scene were given immunity except for the one who wrapped his arm around Garner's neck. They all testified before the GJ.

Fifth, I have come to believe that the Garner non-indictment is easier to explain than the Brown one because all that happened to Garner is pretty much undisputed while what happened to Brown has some inconsistencies which the GJ had to sort through.

I googled again the Columbia law school statement. Most sources reference the Power line blog which is where I saw it. That blog is run by a highly competent and relatively well-known trial lawyer. He runs a pretty tight ship. I agree the statement reads like it is a hoax, but what used to be jokes about moonbats are now true.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I don't disagree with any of that.

Like I said previously, the Garner video looks very bad and it's totally undertandable that people think that one would have at least returned an indictment. They released the Brown case testimony and it should be clear to anyone that getting a conviction in that case would be impossible. At least it seems that it would be impossible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Might be the case for Garner too, but it really looks very bad.

Moonbats are real. The sightings are just less rare these days.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

One more point

Jeopardy has not attached in either case. The district attorneys could present both cases to another grand jury. Obama, Holder, and the other pundits who complain about a miscarriage of justice must know this. But they don't mention it. I think they think there is more to be gained with the protests.









This post was edited on 12/8 10:37 AM by CO. Hoosier

 

[Noodle]

Re: Time to clear things up a little.


They may not have been cutting off his windpipe completely, however, it was being restricted. More importantly, they did compress the side of his neck so much that blood flow to his brain was cut-off, which is why he became unconscious. In my book, that's a chokehold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokehold

And as you know, when it comes to wrongful death, it doesn't really matter if the victim had pre-existing medical conditions. The police were the proximate cause of his death--had they not applied a chokehold, he would not have died that day.

This post was edited on 12/8 12:32 PM by Noodle

 

[Sope Creek]

+1 . . .

I get CO's point about the Ferguson issue being closer than the New York death, but then from my very limited vantage point I see the New York death as a clear instance of too much force being applied. I don't have access to all that the grand jury saw, of course, so I'm not second guessing them . . . but based on what little I know I also don't understand that grand jury's decision.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Several points here

First of all, Garner was clearly conscious after the officer released his hold around Garner's neck. Garner kept talking and actually raised himself to an almost sitting position.

Second, as the cuffs were being applied, the same officer who had him by the neck held Garner's head side ways to the sidewalk. He doesn't appear to have him by the neck at this point, but is applying pressure on top of his ear. Garner is still conscious and talking at this time.

Third, I agree with your pre-existing condition comment about a wrongful death claim. But this only apples to a civil tort claim and this is one of the reasons why I think there is a viable civil claim.

Fourth, in the criminal arena, which is all the grand jury dealt with, the sole inquiry is whether the officer was so reckless, or acted in disregard of public safety, that his conduct presented an reasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to Garner. Ordinary negligence is not a crime. A subject dying because of an unknown condition that makes him more susceptible to injury or death is not a reason to charge a crime if the officer was not otherwise reckless.

Fifth, "had they not applied a chokehold, he would not have died that day. " I'm not so sure the evidence supports this statement. I agree if they did not attempt a forceable arrest he would not have died that day. I think that is a better way to state the issue.










This post was edited on 12/8 3:06 PM by CO. Hoosier

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Too much force?

What force should be used on one who fails to permit himself to be handcuffed? As I mentioned before, the cops did not use a taser, did not use batons, did not use their fists, did not strike the subject in any way, and they took care to not have him crash to the cement sidewalk unprotected. They even kept him on his side instead of putting him face down. How should the force have been less?

I understand the position that no arrest should have been attempted at all, but that is a different issue.

 

[Noodle]

I think you are wrong on at least two accounts

First, the standard the grand jury considered was criminal negligence, NOT recklessness. The two charges they considered were manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

In New York, the standard for criminal negligence is:

"A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

Second, the issue of a pre-existing condition DOES apply in the same manner as it would in a civil wrongful death claim. Nothing changes under criminal law. While the standard for whether the officers acted criminally negligent is a little different than ordinary negligence in the civil context, Garner's pre-existing condition is no more relevant in the criminal context than it is in the civil context. In both instances the question is whether or not the officers acted appropriately under the applicable standard given the circumstances. In other words, culpability really has nothing to do with Garner's pre-existing condition (unless they somehow knew or should have known about it).

 

[Sope Creek]

As I understand it, the medical examiner concluded . . .

that Garner's death resulted from neck compressions from the officer's choke hold plus the compression of Garner's chest during the physical restraint by police. That sounds very different from your statement that no choke hold was used.

That's where this case is fuzzy for me, and admittedly I've been doing other things than chasing down the fine details specific to the police officers' conduct in subduing Garner. But when the MedEx says "neck compressions and compression of the chest by police" is the cause of death, it does sound like too much force, and it does make me wonder what those officers needed to do all that for . . . especially over a few loose cigarettes?

It just seems excessive to me . . . .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here is what the ME supposedly said

"The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner's positioning on the ground while being restrained by police during the July 17 stop on Staten Island, caused his death."

Only the cop who applied the neck hold was brought before the grand jury. The others were all given immunity. As I said, Garner was alive and conscious after he released the neck hold.

The ME also said "Garner's acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors . . . ."

 

[Sope Creek]

If the guy's saying over and over . . .

"I can't breathe", does that place an obligation on the police officers to a reasonable inquiry regarding Garner's pre-existing conditions?

What if he'd had an inhaler on him . . . would they have been obligated to offer/administer that treatment?

One more thing: I can't tell whether your post above indicates that the police officers do have an obligation to take the claimant/suspect as they find him (pre-existing condition and all) or not. In one statement you say that it does apply, and then later you say that culpability isn't dependent on Garner's pre-existing condition. That seems contradictory.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I agree with point numbe 1

I think we are saying the same thing but with different words. (been there done that) If the cop failed to appreciate a substantial unjustifiable risk or failed to perceive the risk because of a gross deviation from the standard of care, he might be guilty. I call that reckless behavior. Here is how I explained this a couple of days ago.

On the second issue, I misunderstood your point about pre-existing conditions and the difference in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, including wrongful death, the "thin skull rule" requires the negligent party to take their plaintiff as they find them. So if the damages are aggravated because of some medical condition, the defendant is responsible. "If some damage is foreseeable, all damage is foreseeable" is basic Palsgraph. However, this is a negligence concept. I don't think the thin skull rule applies in federal civil civil rights litigation; but I have never litigated that issue.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think it does.

That is another factor why I believe there is a strong civil case on behalf of Garner's heirs.

 

[Sope Creek]

Never mind . . .

You already answered the questions in response to my questions to Noodle.


This post was edited on 12/8 4:37 PM by Sope Creek

 

[CO. Hoosier]

More about this


Here is what the law students of color wrote to the Columbia faculty:

Dear Columbia Law School Faculty and Administrators,



We are writing to you as students who have been deeply affected by the recent events in Ferguson, in New York, and across the country. As people of color, we have always had to maintain an awareness of the ways in which our bodies are policed by the state, are under constant threat of violence, and the ways in which we make sacrifices within the institutions of which we are a part in hopes of making the passage through this world, of our bodies and bodies like ours, easier. Recent events have severely impacted us and the need to respond has never felt more urgent.



We have been traumatized over and again by the devaluation of Black and Brown lives. We are falling apart.



In the midst of our trauma, we are, of course, still formally members of the Columbia Law School community. As student leaders of color at Columbia, we have been asked to bear the burden of educating the broader community about issues that have wreaked havoc on our psyches and lives, with some support and some dehumanizing moments of dismissal by our peers and faculty. Nonetheless, we have borne the burden and done so with unfailing grace.



We will not continue to be asked to make sacrifices in the name of informing the broader school community of our struggles without, in turn, demanding that the community care for us too.



Recent events have unsettled our lives as students. We have struggled to compartmentalize our trauma as we sit and make fruitless attempts to focus on exam preparation. We sit to study with the knowledge that our brothers and sisters are regularly killed with impunity on borders and streets; we sit to study with the understanding that our brothers and sisters are marching to have our humanity recognized and valued by a system that has continually failed us. We join marches with the looming anxiety that spending our time organizing events and attending rallies could put our studies and positions in the law school community in jeopardy.



Our trauma will be present with us on exam day, our trauma is inhibiting us from sleeping at night, and our trauma is ever-present among the words in our textbooks. Moreover, the violence that the law has done to Mike Brown and now Eric Garner is a legal violence that affects and implicates us all. We are now asked to use the same legal maneuvers and language on our exams this Monday that was used to deny justice to so many Black and Brown bodies. In being asked to prepare for and take our exams in this moment, we are being asked to perform incredible acts of disassociation that have led us to question our place in this school community and the legal community at large.



We write to you not only from a place of love and concern for ourselves, but also from a place of care and concern for our institution. We maintain some semblance of hope that our institution can be better; indeed, if we did not, we would not be so invested as community leaders. However, we know that Columbia Law School will not be better until its faculty and administration centralize the needs of its students of color. Accepting and matriculating students of color is not enough; we must also adopt and continue to reinvent strategies to make us feel at home here.



We feel that the institution we have worked hard to improve is failing us. Administrators at our peer institutions have reached out, unprompted, to students of color to acknowledge the hurt that many of their students are currently experiencing. We have yet to see that sort of response from our school community and it has left us feeling further devalued and isolated. Instead, Columbia's Midnight Pancakes event took place as scheduled while students of color sat in tears and despair in the floor below or marched in the streets of New York City. The strategies currently in place to attract and retain students of color are in dire need of repair.



We need time to process and breathe. We need your support. We need it now.



We expect the following:



· 1. That faculty and administration recognize our trauma as legitimate and worthy of a response



· 2. That students who have been deeply affected by recent events be allowed to postpone exams



· 3. That an emergency event occur on Monday, December 8, 2015 for the administration, faculty, and students to discuss the concerns of students of color in the wake of recent events



We look forward to working with you to continue to make Columbia Law School a more welcoming place for students of color.



Signed,



The Coalition of Affinity Group Student Leaders and Students of Color.

All I can say here is good lord!. I know I am white, and I grew up without having to be black. But I nevertheless can never understand the poit of view in this letter. There are no Jackie Robinsons in this group. Nor are their any Herman Cain's. These two individuals actually had to drink water from black only water fountains and had to listen to "N!GGER" yelled at them as they grew up. Nor are there any Ben Carson's who overcame probably more subtle social discrimination than these folks. Even the law doesn't recognize the trauma for people in the shoes of these students. I would think a LAW SCHOOL would explain a little about emotional distress when one is outside the zone of danger. Enabling the feelings expressed in this communication does not advance the cause of racial harmoney. If this represents the prevailing attitude among all people of color, we are in a worse place than we were when Jackie Robinson suited up for the Dodgers a few miles from Columbia law school. Segregation was legal when he played but we have a greater divide today.

 

[NPT]

But if I hear someone

saying over and over "I can't breathe" I would know that he is breathing because he has to be getting air to keep talking. I guess I would hate to be a policeman today and try to know exactly how much force to apply when trying to arrest someone who is resisting me. There are obvious times (Rodney King for example) where the police go overboard but others like this case where I just don't know. I have no idea what I would have done if I had been the guy holding him. The linked article explains the autopsy pretty well.

Hit it

 

[Noodle]

Re: I agree with point numbe 1


If you think about it, the thin-skull rule does apply in criminal cases. If a drunk driver T-bones someone at an intersection, they are looking at vehicular manslaughter (or worse) if the person in the other vehicle dies because they are elderly and in poor health, but not if they happen to T-bone a 25 year old healthy person who walks away with a bruised hip. The conduct of the accused is the same in both instances, yet the criminal penalties are vastly different. That's what I was getting at.

As for reckless vs. criminal negligence, they are a little bit different under NY law. Not vastly different, but different nonetheless.

 

[Sope Creek]

Sounds like to me those experts believe . . .

the officers used too much force, in all three primary actions taken: (1) the compression of the jugular veins, (2) the knee to the back (which alone could kill someone, and (3) holding down the guy's head in a sideways position.

BTW, I'm not persuaded by the 'if he could talk, he could breathe" argument. There's a big difference between getting enough air to say something and enough air to remain healthy, as any asthmatic or COPD sufferer will tell you.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's a great observation. I'd split this hair like this

In the case of excessive force causing death, the question is whether the officer disregarded an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. The officer's conduct cannot be measured by, and his culpability cannot depend on, the increase in risk provided by a victim with pre-existing conditions.

In the case of DUI, the unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury is a given by simply driving under the influence. Res ipsa loquitur from civil law would be an appropriate analogy--I think. Thus any death caused by the driving would be culpable.

 

[Noodle]

Re: That's a great observation. I'd split this hair like this

we're on the same page.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Let me jump in

to see if I follow the page you two are on.

Where the pre-existing conditions might apply would be in a situation where the defendant was under some legal obligation to ascertain those conditions and act accordingly (i.e., a doctor who administers penicillin without looking at a patient's allergy bracelet), correct? Otherwise, the deceased's pre-existing conditions are legally irrelevant as to whether the officer was negligent.

I'm I on the right page, as well?

goat

 

[janiece]

The zone of danger

is American law, the criminal justice system, the United States of America:

"...is ever-present among the words
in our textbooks. Moreover, the violence that the law has done to Mike
Brown and now Eric Garner is a legal violence that affects and
implicates us all. We are now asked to use the same legal maneuvers and
language on our exams this Monday that was used to deny justice to so
many Black and Brown bodies. In being asked to prepare for and take our
exams in this moment, we are being asked to perform incredible acts of
disassociation that have led us to question our place in this school
community and the legal community at large."

There is no way for an American citizen of color to live outside the zone of danger without eliminating the danger. That's evidently what you can't fathom. Not even money or power can avert the danger. It's the same for Michael Jordan and Barack Obama.

Furthermore, your statement:

"The students need to know that as lawyers they don't get
"trauma breaks" from life when a ruling goes against them, opposing
counsel insults them, or a judge yells at them for not being prepared.
Counseling? Relief from taking exams? Does anybody want a to hire a
lawyer with this kind of training?"

is profoundly debasing, though I'm confident you didn't mean it to be so. Do you really think the law students who wrote the above aren't aware of the "lesson" you think Columbia University needs to "teach" them? Should I now quote you and say, "All I can say here is good lord!"?

No, I shouldn't. I thank you for raising the subject and openly discussing it. I find it informative. Plus, without white folks demonstrating across the country, I doubt change is likely to occur.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

First of all

Thank you for responding. And I mean that.

Some thoughts about your thoughts.

There are macro and a micro issues here.

At the macro level, I don't fully understand the danger that you allege that even Michael Jordan and Barack Obama live under. Is it subtle discrimination in public places or is it actual real and physical danger. But the larger point for me is how do we ever put race issues behind us given what I am seeing, reading, and hearing about the current situation. "We sit to study with the knowledge that our brothers and sisters are regularly killed with impunity on borders and streets;" [/I]Really? I'll attribute some of this to youthful exuberance and their wanting to be noticed by this letter. But they have overstated their case. These are students at a prestigious ivy league law school--one of the best. These are not ordinary people. In a sense they are a cut above of many of us. Yet they succumb to the tsunami of emotion as if their entire humanity is defined by skin color. I expect more. I think my reference to Jackie Robinson is spot on. His bad treatment was personal and direct. Yet he went on to be rookie of the year and was one of baseball's best. The columbia law students only feel vicariously what Jackie Robinson felt directly. The Columbia students are not called n!igger at their school. They don't need separate bathrooms or water fountains. They don't need to sit in the back of the bus. When Jackie Robinson played segregation was real and legal. Now it isn't. As I said, I don't understand. But I do understand that the racial situation is worse. I only mention Jackie Robinson because he is a conspicuous example of my point. There are thousands if not millions of nameless faceless people of color who have excelled and did not fold because of being generally traumatized. To put it bluntly, the Columbia law students are feeling sorry for themselves and they are enabled in that effort by the administration at Columbia and by many national leaders.

At the micro level. Even Garner's family didn't think his takedown is racial. The commanding officer on the scene was African American and female. She didn't seem disturbed by what she saw. She testified before the grand jury. In Brown's case we know that Brown attacked the officer and tried to take his weapon. When the officer shot, do you really believe he shot a black man or he shot a man who posed a threat. We don't need to get into whether the grand juries were right or wrong. But we can agree that a criminal process that has been in place for 100's of years was used in both cases. Do the Columbia law students want a second grand jury? They complain about having to study and work with a system that is the source of injustice. But we need to consider this: If the grand jury system is weakened because of public opinion and demonstrations, that weakness will affect all of us. You might be before a grand jury some day. I think you want it, and the justice system, to do its job free of being subject to extrinsic pressures.









This post was edited on 12/8 9:23 PM by CO. Hoosier

 

[WisslerIII]

I don't understand that argument. If I'm having trouble

breathing, I can still get out "I can't breathe". It's what I would expect from someone having severe difficulty breathing.

It's like drowning. You don't have to be underwater the entire time to bob to the top for a few seconds and yell "I'm drowning". What would you say - no, you're not because you can still get your head above water for a few seconds?

Look, if cops don't like your attitude, they'll hurt you. You can do everything perfectly, and if they think you're not showing the proper 'respect', in their eyes, they'll make sure you don't forget the experience. Certainly not all cops - but enough that it's a pretty common thing.

Hell, I was once threatened with arrest for 'theft of service' while I waited outside a high school football game for the ticket line to go in. I'm a taxpayer in the district and was an athletic booster (up to that point). I didn't argue with the cop, but shook my head as I walked to the ticket booth. The SOB followed me all the way, baiting me into saying something so he could 'arrest' me. I just kept my mouth shut and kept walking. Now if I'd been black..... who knows?

Let's get real here. We need the police. They need our support. But you've got enough cops who run a fine line between cop and criminal to make the public suspect. I respect state cops a heck of a lot more, because they at least have some minimum education requirement.



This post was edited on 12/8 9:35 PM by WisslerIII

 

[Sope Creek]

What do you mean by . . .

"eliminating the danger"?

 

[Noodle]

Re: Let me jump in

Originally posted by TheOriginalHappyGoat:
to see if I follow the page you two are on.

Where the pre-existing conditions might apply would be in a situation where the defendant was under some legal obligation to ascertain those conditions and act accordingly (i.e., a doctor who administers penicillin without looking at a patient's allergy bracelet), correct? Otherwise, the deceased's pre-existing conditions are legally irrelevant as to whether the officer was negligent.

I'm I on the right page, as well?

goat

Sure. But pre-existing conditions are not always irrelevant to whether an officer or anyone else acted negligently. In particular, if the officer or other person knows or reasonably should have known of a pre-existing condition, then it could be relevant to the question of negligence or recklessness, depending on the circumstances. But that's likely going to be a rare situation where that would come into play.

This post was edited on 12/8 11:30 PM by Noodle

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Good.

We're in the same place.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I can't relate to that letter.

I've tried very hard to, but I can't imagine any scenario where I would support a letter like that written on my behalf. Though I grew up in bi-racial neighborhoods, attended a majority black elementary school, have black folks in my extended family from interracial marriages, and have had and have very good friends that are black, I can't really imagine what it's like to be black. Though I can't imagine supporting that letter if I were black, I'm not black. Maybe Bing will weigh in at some point. He's been back since the week before Thanksgiving, but he's been spending most of his time with his family, as he should be doing, and has been generally avoiding the Cooler. That's probably good too for a guy trying to enjoy his 30 days leave after a deployment in Afghanistan where someone unsucessfully tried to kill him and successfully killed a couple people he was with. A buddy of his is still paralyzed from that attack as well. He needs some relaxation and reflection time.

I'm trying to imagine being a member of any interest group that would support that letter and can't.

 

[hoot1]

Size and force required

I cannot help but think the size (height and weight) of the suspect was an important factor in the police using what turned out to be deadly force. If the suspect had been a short skinny guy, I don't think as many officers would have become involved. Also I don't think the tactics used would have been as severe.

The irony being that the huge suspect also had a debilitating health problem. This was a lethal combination. Lethal because what appeared to be an almost insurmountable task in subduing the suspect turned out to be a potential death waiting to happen.

Thus the number of officers involved contributed to the death (one each on chest, neck/ head, and throat) with the health of the suspect being the final straw.

My conclusion, a rather rare set of circumstances with a somewhat predictable result that the police officers involved couldn't have predicted.

 

[janiece]

Danger is any threat to one's survival

as occasioned by one's skin color, in this context.

A good young man, a father, spent five years in prison, wrongly convicted and freed once DNA identified the actual criminal. I saw their pictures on TV, side by side, described as similar in bone structure, skin tone and others features. Though I could understand the adjudged likeness, my eyes easily saw two very different people. For an entire month in China I strove to differentiate the physiognomies of Chinese people. I had to decide to look beyond skin deep.

Police officers are witness to a different danger. Danger takes on many likenesses.

I can only speculate on how to eliminate danger. I was responding to CO. Hoosier's "zone of danger." I wished to explain that for people of color the zone is everywhere and the danger is ever present. I think the problem is far deeper than people are looking. Children need to feel safe in their neighborhoods and schools. Honest people, including police officers, should feel safe to walk any streets. Children need to grow up feeling society is fair. That would be a civilized society.

 

[janiece]

You're welcome.

The basic problems to me are how to make our streets safer for everyone, including officers of the law, and how to make our society fairer for all our children. They are cultural and societal problems to me. Everyone's problems. They are our streets. They are our children.

I described the danger to Sope Creek above. I'll explain a bit more, if you'll put yourself momentarily in the skin of an honest person of color. You're driving along, skin jet black. A police officer pulls you over. He gets out and approaches your car slowly, circumspectly. As he asks for your license, you see fear in his eyes. You understand his fear. You're strangers to one another. You understand that fear can drive him to react defensively. You become afraid. You strive to be kindly, but you're petrified that you might say something wrong, do anything wrong. He has a gun. He is the Law.

That is an everyday experience for honest black people of all educational and family backgrounds. Now imagine that you live that way constantly when out in public. You have no choice. This is not a rational choice. You are ensconced in this reality. White folks can at best imagine what it's like. A diploma from Columbia University on your office wall is useless in public, as is the best behavior. This is not an issue of refusing to surrender and be handcuffed, although such behavior worsens the problem, creating more danger and fear for police officers. The issue for the Columbia students, as I see it, is that police officers of any color, no matter why, fear, danger, whatever, treat people of color differently than they treat white folks.

People treat people of color differently. Until you see that, you are unlikely to understand the Columbia students. I'm not much interested in politics but this topic interests me. Last night I witnessed an interview with Mitch McConnell. He said it's a work in progress. I think he understands. That's encouraging. You don't seem to even see it. That's discouraging. You're discussing it. That's encouraging.

Of course it is also true that people of color may treat white folks differently. The difference is that white folks can and generally do live their lives without even noticing. Who cares? Not so for people of color.

I agree we need a justice system. A grand jury is only as effective as its jurists. We could discuss that but I think it misses the point. There is a societal problem that needs to be addressed, how to make our streets safer. Many if not most people of color have been afraid to talk about this with white folks. Re-read the Columbia letter from a different point of view. View it as some young people who are trying their best to succeed, like all other students, but who have to bear the extra burden of sharing a societal responsibility to effect a change. They view it as everyone's responsibility, but they see that Columbia administrators, professor and white students haven't been behaving as if it's their responsibility too. These students of color are asking for an acknowledgment that it's everyone's responsibility and that they be allowed leeway in test-taking so they can assume all of their responsibilities. It would be too easy to let the sentiment die like a wet fire.

How to make life more fair for all children probably requires more effort than is likely to ever occur. We can hope. A child with no father and a mother on drugs has little hope without help from outside.

How do we get everyone to accept some societal responsibility for these problems? How do we make life fairer for all children? How do we make all our streets safer? Maybe we can save a policeman's life too.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

All poice are

concerned about approaching a car during a traffic stop. I can think of several instances where cops have been shot at during a stop, and if I recall correctly, the perps were all white. Cops use universal precautions when approaching any vehicle. I'm not sure how an approach could be any more cautious, circumspect, or slowly than their training dictates for all approaches. But I'll concede that there times and places where cops relax those standards and they might relax them more in low crime areas.

Here's my story as an obviously elderly white guy who lives in an infill mostly white Denver community with a great deal of racial diversity in the nearby neighborhoods. There have been more than a few parking lot attacks in the local Walmart and grocery store. According to the published reports, the perpetrators are all African American. The victims fall into a pattern, white women and white older men. One case was an elderly African American male victim at a Home Depot that may have had some personal issues associated with that attack. In addition, I have one neighbor who answered a doorbell to be greeted by a 30 something white guy with a small child, the father was covered in blood. He was shot while going to the store, the police said it was likely a black gang initiation. Another recently had his wife's purse stolen from her shopping cart at the grocery store. Surveillance video showed the perps to be an African American couple. So here are my universal precautions. When I go to the store, I take care to park in the open where I can see and be seen. I am aware of single African American young men, I don't pay too much attention to AA females or men with kids.

There are AA families who live in my neighborhood. I have no concerns there. Their homes are on my dog-walking route. I like to bicycle and that requires me to ride through minority neighborhoods. I even ride through known Blood gang territory. While I am aware, I don't feel terribly threatened there simply because there is no reported history of attacks like there is in parking lots. So I think I can honestly say I am not universally more careful of black people, but I am aware and careful given the time and place. You can call this racism if you want. I call it being careful.

The question is why do I feel the need to be aware of people who might be a threat and why is that associated with race? Even Jessie Jackson said a few years ago of holding similar concerns as my own. Why are high crime areas in large cities typically inhabited by people of color?

 

[NPT]

Well I would expect that (having trouble breathing)

from someone is normal circumstances but put yourself in the cop's position of trying to arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested and is fighting back and they're saying they can't breathe. What do you do? Do you just take the person's word that they can't breathe. Gardner was a big guy and was probably pretty strong. You have to remember that cops hear all sorts of excuses from people breaking the law...most of them lousy excuses.

I do think there are "John Wayne" type cops out there that have absolutely no business being a cop because they don't know how to handle the power they have. I see way too many speeding down the highway breaking the speed limit...then they'll turn around and write you a ticket for going the same speed.

This post was edited on 12/10 7:06 AM by NPT

 

[WisslerIII]

Looked to me like he had quit struggling. I agree, if he

was still struggling then keep the pressure on.

But it looked to me like he wasn't struggling, except maybe to breathe. When you're as close as the cop was, I suppose he should have been able to tell. But it also looked to me like the cop was intent on making the guy pay for struggling in the first place.