Boycotting the NFL

[Lisa loves Pooh]

So... I'm just going to respond as if all of your posts have been sincere.

I get that there is a disconnect for you somewhere, when it comes to either understanding the concept of victim-blaming, or accepting that it exists. Which is reasonable to expect, as its largely an unconscious thing.

It might help you to understand why people are bringing it up in response to statements about Eric Garner contributing to his own death, by reading this http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-love-and-war/201311/why-do-we-blame-victims

You are correct. Nobody has openly stated that they believe the chokehold was an acceptable method to use. Yes. Agreed. Just like nobody (typically) openly says that rape (I know, I know... you don't accept that it has any place in the conversation - bear with me!) is acceptable.

The problem is, that by continuing to say things like "yes, but he was resisting arrest", or "yes, but he was doing something illegal" implies that he was somehow asking for it... "it" being his own death. Hence - blaming the victim.

You are more than welcome to reject the concept... but that does not mean that the concept does not exist, or that it does not apply to what you (and others) have been saying.

Fair enough.
But I don't blame him for his death and if my posts in ANY way convey that, then that is my failure to be clear.

I do blame him for doing something that required his arrest and it was his choice to resist. Beyond that, the fault was not his.

It was brought up earlier that my "semantics" was victim blaming when it most certainly was not--it was an attempt to get to what the officers' protocol should have been and no reference to psychological definitions will change the reality of what I meant.

And the fact that no aid was rendered is unconscionable.

As for the knife wielding man this morning, it is my belief that he was 100% responsible for his own death. He was not a victim.

 

[OurBigTrip]

One of the things that makes me wonder is that everyone is talking about what Eric Garner did wrong. He allegedly broke the law by selling single untaxed cigarettes. But why is it ok and accepted that the police officer violated protocols established by the NYPD 11 years ago.

If it is ok for the officer to do this where do you draw the line?

If what is set down by the NYPD are really more guide lines that they can follow (or not) as they see fit then I think everyone should be worried.

I don't think it's OK that the officer used a banned choke hold, and I think he should fired for that.

 

[OurBigTrip]

So... I'm just going to respond as if all of your posts have been sincere.

I get that there is a disconnect for you somewhere, when it comes to either understanding the concept of victim-blaming, or accepting that it exists. Which is reasonable to expect, as its largely an unconscious thing.

It might help you to understand why people are bringing it up in response to statements about Eric Garner contributing to his own death, by reading this http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-love-and-war/201311/why-do-we-blame-victims

You are correct. Nobody has openly stated that they believe the chokehold was an acceptable method to use. Yes. Agreed. Just like nobody (typically) openly says that rape (I know, I know... you don't accept that it has any place in the conversation - bear with me!) is acceptable.

The problem is, that by continuing to say things like "yes, but he was resisting arrest", or "yes, but he was doing something illegal" implies that he was somehow asking for it... "it" being his own death. Hence - blaming the victim.

You are more than welcome to reject the concept... but that does not mean that the concept does not exist, or that it does not apply to what you (and others) have been saying.

Your condescending tone aside, there is something that you don't seem to be getting either. No one is saying that Eric Garner was asking for it "it" being his death. What we're saying is that he contributed to the escalation of the situation, and he does bear responsibility for that. There was no excuse for the officer to use the choke hold, but the fact that Eric Garner CHOSE to resist meant that the situation would unnecessarily escalate, and when that happens, there is no way of knowing for certain what the outcome would be.

If a citizen feels that he or she is being unjust detained or arrested, resisting arrest is not the answer.

Is Eric Garner responsible for his own death? No. Did he make really bad choices that ultimately led to his death? Yes.

 

[TaylorEar]

Fair enough.
But I don't blame him for his death and if my posts in ANY way convey that, then that is my failure to be clear.

I do blame him for doing something that required his arrest and it was his choice to resist. Beyond that, the fault was not his.

It was brought up earlier that my "semantics" was victim blaming when it most certainly was not--it was an attempt to get to what the officers' protocol should have been and no reference to psychological definitions will change the reality of what I meant.

And the fact that no aid was rendered is unconscionable.

As for the knife wielding man this morning, it is my belief that he was 100% responsible for his own death. He was not a victim.

I totally believe that you do not blame him for his death. Again - victim blaming is largely unconscious, which is one of the main reasons it continues to be so prevalent. For me, the problem is not so much about your intended message (again, I totally believe that you do not blame him for his death), but rather the potential consequences or interpretations of that message. Continuing to state that he was guilty of doing something that caused the police to arrest him, and guilty of resisting arrest can cloud the issue and skew the perspective.

The issue is not about Eric Garner's arrest record. It's not about the conversation he was having with police prior to the incident. It's not about him "resisting" the arrest. It's about a trained police officer making, at the very least, a HORRIBLE mistake, and at most, committing a murder. It's about trying to figure out how to ensure that the police stop making these kinds of choices/mistakes/etc. And I don't believe the answer is "stop committing crimes and resisting arrest".

 

[OurBigTrip]

For me, the problem is not so much about your intended message (again, I totally believe that you do not blame him for his death), but rather the potential consequences or interpretations of that message. Continuing to state that he was guilty of doing something that caused the police to arrest him, and guilty of resisting arrest can cloud the issue and skew the perspective.

Speaking only for myself, how someone else interprets what I say is that person's problem, not mine.

 

[declansdad]

Your condescending tone aside, there is something that you don't seem to be getting either. No one is saying that Eric Garner was asking for it "it" being his death. What we're saying is that he contributed to the escalation of the situation, and he does bear responsibility for that. There was no excuse for the officer to use the choke hold, but the fact that Eric Garner CHOSE to resist meant that the situation would unnecessarily escalate, and when that happens, there is no way of knowing for certain what the outcome would be.

If a citizen feels that he or she is being unjust detained or arrested, resisting arrest is not the answer.

Is Eric Garner responsible for his own death? No. Did he make really bad choices that ultimately led to his death? Yes.

His choice contributed to his death not led to it. If you want to look at it that way, the police officer is the one who had the last opportunity to change the outcome of this incident.

 

[luvsJack]

Re the bolded: It could have also been an attempt by the suspect to overtake the officers and get and opportunity to escape.

And as officers they should know how to handle that. They should know how to keep the man in custody without killing him. Do you believe this was the first very large man to resist arrest in. NYC?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I totally believe that you do not blame him for his death. Again - victim blaming is largely unconscious, which is one of the main reasons it continues to be so prevalent. For me, the problem is not so much about your intended message (again, I totally believe that you do not blame him for his death), but rather the potential consequences or interpretations of that message. Continuing to state that he was guilty of doing something that caused the police to arrest him, and guilty of resisting arrest can cloud the issue and skew the perspective.

The issue is not about Eric Garner's arrest record. It's not about the conversation he was having with police prior to the incident. It's not about him "resisting" the arrest. It's about a trained police officer making, at the very least, a HORRIBLE mistake, and at most, committing a murder. It's about trying to figure out how to ensure that the police stop making these kinds of choices/mistakes/etc. And I don't believe the answer is "stop committing crimes and resisting arrest".

I was not refering to his record, but solely his actions that day.

I really don't wish our society to ignore smaller crimes because I fear with the irrational fear that this is an epidemic will lead to ineffective policing. Anything they do will not be without criticism it seems.

Ultimately--I don't want to see this happen:
http://www.odmp.org/officer/21204-deputy-sheriff-barbara-ann-pill

Or this:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6207062

Any more than you wish to see another Brown or Garner.

It has already been mentioned by another poster that Garner should not have been arrested in the first place for violating an unjust law. That is a separate discussion entirely. To me that just as much skews the issue as well as it is a claim that the officers were wrong from the start. And in many discussions--if always seems the officers were in the wrong from the start which doesn't make sense even when evidence shows the initial encounter was justified.

Earlier today, I came across an article that highlighted unarmed deaths since 1999. The problem, police deaths by gunfire exceeded that many times over on the same time period. One is depicted as an epidemic while the other isn't even though the numbers are much higher.(noting that the justified homicides by police does far exceed both numbers I am discussing--I'm just comparing "epidemic" to shooting deaths of officers.)

Note they discuss death by gunfire and not all deaths in the line of duty via homicide. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/30/nation/la-na-nn-police-deaths-20131230

http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349

 

[disney4us2002]

I totally believe that you do not blame him for his death. Again - victim blaming is largely unconscious, which is one of the main reasons it continues to be so prevalent. For me, the problem is not so much about your intended message (again, I totally believe that you do not blame him for his death), but rather the potential consequences or interpretations of that message. Continuing to state that he was guilty of doing something that caused the police to arrest him, and guilty of resisting arrest can cloud the issue and skew the perspective.

The issue is not about Eric Garner's arrest record. It's not about the conversation he was having with police prior to the incident. It's not about him "resisting" the arrest. It's about a trained police officer making, at the very least, a HORRIBLE mistake, and at most, committing a murder. It's about trying to figure out how to ensure that the police stop making these kinds of choices/mistakes/etc. And I don't believe the answer is "stop committing crimes and resisting arrest".

That may be the issue to you but not to me. I cannot and will not separate the facts and that is that EG's actions did contribute to the situation. Your implication is that a police officer is just walking down the street and decides to jump some random dude and kill him by applying a choke hold. Those are not the "facts" in this case. You can call it victim blaming - I call it personal responsibility.

 

[luvsJack]

That may be the issue to you but not to me. I cannot and will not separate the facts and that is that EG's actions did contribute to the situation. Your implication is that a police officer is just walking down the street and decides to jump some random dude and kill him by applying a choke hold. Those are not the "facts" in this case. You can call it victim blaming - I call it personal responsibility.

Put yout own son in EG's place. Would you truly still call it " personal responsibility"?

We all do have a responsibility to abide by the law but that doesn't mean we should die for a bad choice. No one has said that the man was totally without responsibility. But the officer does hold a greater one in his death.

 

[CPT Tripss]

That may be the issue to you but not to me. I cannot and will not separate the facts and that is that EG's actions did contribute to the situation. Your implication is that a police officer is just walking down the street and decides to jump some random dude and kill him by applying a choke hold. Those are not the "facts" in this case. You can call it victim blaming - I call it personal responsibility.

And what responsibility do Pantaleo and the other officers involved in the takedown as well as the several other officers on the scene observing have?

 

[Disneychick75]

And what responsibility do Pantaleo and the other officers involved in the takedown as well as the several other officers on the scene observing have?

It would not have happened if Garner had 1. not broken the law and 2. not resisted arrest. Seems like that's the way the grand jury saw it.

 

[TaylorEar]

I was not refering to his record, but solely his actions that day.

I really don't wish our society to ignore smaller crimes because I fear with the irrational fear that this is an epidemic will lead to ineffective policing. Anything they do will not be without criticism it seems.

Ultimately--I don't want to see this happen:
http://www.odmp.org/officer/21204-deputy-sheriff-barbara-ann-pill

Or this:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6207062

Any more than you wish to see another Brown or Garner.

It has already been mentioned by another poster that Garner should not have been arrested in the first place for violating an unjust law. That is a separate discussion entirely. To me that just as much skews the issue as well as it is a claim that the officers were wrong from the start. And in many discussions--if always seems the officers were in the wrong from the start which doesn't make sense even when evidence shows the initial encounter was justified.

Earlier today, I came across an article that highlighted unarmed deaths since 1999. The problem, police deaths by gunfire exceeded that many times over on the same time period. One is depicted as an epidemic while the other isn't even though the numbers are much higher.(noting that the justified homicides by police does far exceed both numbers I am discussing--I'm just comparing "epidemic" to shooting deaths of officers.)

Note they discuss death by gunfire and not all deaths in the line of duty via homicide. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/30/nation/la-na-nn-police-deaths-20131230

http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349

While I don't personally believe any feelings regarding these current issues will lead us towards ignoring smaller/petty crimes, I can understand why somebody might worry about that. If anything, I would hope that these issues would force discussions/actions that would lead to more effective policing.

I do agree... there will be criticism no matter WHAT they do, which I feel goes with the territory. I do think the police should be held to a higher standard in terms of being the model for upholding the law. I think that's why people/the media/society tend to pay more attention to the cases where a police officer oversteps (or possibly oversteps), than when a criminal does (putting it VERY mildly). Add to that, the fact that we live in a digital age where social media largely controls the news cycle... and it's all basically one giant mess.

I believe the vast majority of police officers are well-trained, civil servants who devote their lives to protecting and serving their communities. I also believe that there are some major problems in some police forces that lead to a mistrust of cops within some communities, which leads to some very tragic events (like the ones you linked to). These are deep-seeded issues that will not go away unless people are willing to have uncomfortable conversations.

 

[declansdad]

It would not have happened if Garner had 1. not broken the law and 2. not resisted arrest. Seems like that's the way the grand jury saw it.

3. the officer had not used the choke hold.

We have no idea how the grand jury saw it.

 

[JanaDee]

The issue is not about Eric Garner's arrest record. It's not about the conversation he was having with police prior to the incident. It's not about him "resisting" the arrest. It's about a trained police officer making, at the very least, a HORRIBLE mistake, and at most, committing a murder. It's about trying to figure out how to ensure that the police stop making these kinds of choices/mistakes/etc. And I don't believe the answer is "stop committing crimes and resisting arrest".

I am not willing to absolve Garner of his responsibility in what happened, as you are.

You don't commit arrestable offenses, you won't be arrested. Pretty simple.

 

[AnAmericanInDisney]

It would not have happened if Garner had 1. not broken the law and 2. not resisted arrest. Seems like that's the way the grand jury saw it.

My friend's husband does police training. He said the Eric Garner grand jury decision was messed up. He thought the Michael Brown decision was fair.

 

[wvjules]

I thought this thread was about football?

 

[wvjules]

My friend's husband does police training. He said the Eric Garner grand jury decision was messed up. He thought the Michael Brown decision was fair.

Was your husband on the GJ and saw/heard evidence on which to base his decision?

 

[CPT Tripss]

It would not have happened if Garner had 1. not broken the law and 2. not resisted arrest. Seems like that's the way the grand jury saw it.

Two wrongs don't make it right . . . but they make a good excuse.

Was your husband on the GJ and saw/heard evidence on which to base his decision?

Neither were Krauthammer, Bush or O'Reilly (not a group of bleeding hearts, despite one's claim of compassion) and they all opined that the Grand Jury got it wrong.

 

[wvjules]

Two wrongs don't make it right . . . but they make a good excuse.



Neither were Krauthammer, Bush or O'Reilly (not a group of bleeding hearts, despite one's claim of compassion) and they all opined that the Grand Jury got it wrong.

That doesn't mean they are right either.

On the surface, I agree it looks like the jury got it wrong, way wrong, but until the GJ documents are released NONE of us will know what information they had on which to base their decision.