*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by enoch.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

BLOCKED users go to http://dai.ly/x2ctfgd

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, December 18th, 2014 7:01am PST - promote requested by eric3579.

Is there a policy governing videos that auto-play being feature promoted (and pre-expanded as a result)? If there isn't, there should be.

Videos on the Sift, shouldn't auto-play.
There isn't a rule against it, but there is a mechanism that stops them. if one makes it through, not a big deal. but if many are making it through, the it needs to be tweaked.

I wonder what Jon Stewart's response is to the parade I saw in NY where the folks were chanting 'Whatta we want?" "DEAD COPS" ? 'Whatta we want?" "DEAD COPS" 'Whatta we want?" "DEAD COPS"

In November, 12 cops died. They 'can't breathe' anymore.

In November, how many citizens were killed by cops?
Statistic say if 12 cops were killed, at least 120 citizens were killed by them.
It's a terrible situation, but one caused by cops acting inappropriately aggressive repeatedly, causing DEATHS, and other cops standing in support of them. I'm sad if this is leading to more police deaths, but I'm glad they're finally feeling blowback, and hope it makes them de-escalate rather than escalate the violence and discord.

We got our hands up, we're begging 'don't shoot and beat our 12 and 77 year olds', and we can't breath.

Michael Brown didn't have his 'hands up' according to credible evidence. Both he and Eric Garner died from resisting arrest and the violence attendant upon that fact.

Being arrested is not a negotiation between two parties in a contract.

That all depends on who you listen to. Most witnesses said he did.
Garner died from being choked to death. Period. It was not necessary at all, was against department rules, and was many many levels of escalation from what he was doing, standing surrounded by 8 cops.
Because the DA threw both cases in the toilet, we'll never know.
Can you see how that makes the police less popular and more feared and hated? If not, I think that's a major part of the issue.
I'm glad you didn't try to defend the cop why beat up the 77 year old man over absolutely nothing. (trying to angrily snatch papers without notice and having them pulled away is not cause or resisting, BTW)

Garner didn't die from being choked. Coroner ruled there was no damage or obstruction to the trachea.

His system was weak and he died from the stress of resisting arrest. He should have cooperated and he'd be alive today.

That's absolutely not what's been reported. The reports have repeatedly said his hyoid was severely injured and he asphyxiated.
Also, we can not take the word of the public coroner when it comes to officer involved death. Like the DA, they work with the cops daily, and bend over backwards to 'help' them repeatedly. Independent prosecutors and coroners are needed on EVERY officer involved death, without them we'll see you all as members of a deadly, powerful gang of thugs.
Cops should have TALKED to him instead of deciding 'he's not complying fast enough, get him fellas' and dog piling on him, starting from behind with a hold specifically disallowed by the department. (I'm glad you didn't try to say he wasn't choked, because that would just be ridiculous). That's really overboard for someone selling loosies, and was really, obviously about contempt of cop.

It might be a good idea for them to not laugh and joke about it while the body is still lying on the sidewalk and the family is filming them too, btw. (I've seen the extended video)

Perhaps he should have cooperated, but in no way would that ensure he'd be alive. The 77 year old man cooperated fully, (when a cop just nastily grabs at your papers for no reason and without saying a thing, pulling away is expected and acceptable) and was beaten and tasered for his trouble. Cooperation simply means the cops won't be hurt, not the citizen. Many many people are injured and killed cooperating with police and in full custody yearly. You somehow put the blame 100% on them and 0% on the police that have them under their control and have the duty to protect them. The rest of us have lost all trust in cops lately, and we feel if you have a duty you should perform it.

EDIT: How did 'cooperating' work out for this guy?
http://videosift.com/video/South-Carolina-cop-shoots-man-for-getting-license

I think the majority of people believe that if you act civilized you will not have any trouble with the police, and that the police have a difficult job to do and that the police will risk their lives to protect the lives and property of others.

Only a small percentage of people believe otherwise.

People who believe that are mistaken.
As I've told you before, I had an instance where an officer misread my license plate and assumed my car was stolen, so he yanked me out of my car angrily and forcibly at gunpoint, throwing me to the ground and jumping on me, wrenching my arms back and handcuffing me as tight as humanly possible....while I did absolutely nothing but comply. When he finally figured out his mistake, he was insulting and threatening, telling me to not report it because he had my address. (And that's not the only inappropriate police activity I've been subjected to by police)
My feelings about how police act come from direct personal experience with them.
That is proof enough in my eyes that your statement is simply ridiculous. It's certainly looking like most people today think that no matter how you act, if you are targeted by police, you are in serious danger for your freedom and safety (guilty or not), and there's absolutely nothing you can do to avoid the assault. Today, only a small percentage of people think otherwise, and many of them either wear or wash a uniform (meaning are closely related to a cop).

Okay newtboy, I understand you are frustrated. New York was bullshit and should not have happened. A manslaughter charge would have been appropriate in this case, at the least. And now remember, I am no friend of bullshit law enforcement choices.

But your arguments are just as bad as Lantern's arguments. They are utter shit. Beneath you by and far. I myself have been drawn down at gunpoint for a simple traffic screw up, but then it was night and I had almost ran into him because I was tired. Shit happens. I knew my place. My dumb cunt wife at the time got out of the car anyways, even when she was ordered back in. He pointed it harder at me--instead of her. Yeah, that's smart.

Anyways, I will talk about your posts in another separate post.

"That depends on who you ask...witnesses..." Really... Yeah, the same shit is argued by "witnesses" for the CIA that argue the CIA does not "torture" people. THAT ARGUMENT in general is utterly asinine. A group of people, many who contradicted each other in the heat of the moment want to portray the outsider as a bad guy...it doesn't help that most of them are low intelligence. Imagine if it had all been white police officers who were the "witnesses", you sure as hell would not side with them. You would say they lie, or defend one another...

Additionally, even if not intentionally, I know that mistaken identity has screwed so many innocent people because in a crisis situation your cognitive functions all but lie to you. You just don't remember things very clearly--even if you are unbiased.

So what do you do? Fault imperfect humans in an imperfect situation? No, you look at the physical evidence. Did the bullet enter the top of his head? Well then he was under the officer and people underneath someone usually try to take someone to the ground, etc. The DA threw the cases away...um, no...the Grand Jury did...the DA has considerable sway there, yes, but then so does public perception...

As a sidebar I should add that in proper uses of force, not Garner's particular situation at all, the more officers on a subject the better. This prevents injury by immobilizing someone. The more someone moves the more force that eventually has to be used. That is the principle behind the tazer. Yeah, I could rip you off the car door you grab on to resist arrest, or I could taze you. Potentially rip your arm out of its socket, or shock you for five seconds...same with three or four people grabbing you to gain compliance. Same reason handcuffs are applied.

What makes me mad is that Brown committed strong-arm robbery but was labeled a shoplifter. What pissed me off is that he was portrayed as an angel and he was the kind of guy that would kill you for a dollar, or rape your sister. What pisses me off is that a group of biased witnesses even matter. What pisses me off is that Brown's parents are not fit to mourn and created this situation far more than the cops did. And what pisses me off is that Garner died for a non-violent crime.

From my point of view, your argument is asinine.
He (Lantern) made a definitive statement based on some witnesses and evidence by saying 'credible evidence' (which strongly implys that only the witness and evidence/interpretations that agreed with the police version is credible, and all others are not), I pointed out that far more witnesses had disputed that version of events, and the evidence is up for interpretation, not definitive.
You also discount (nearly) all local witnesses (and go on to insult them for no reason, or is it just racism that makes you label them 'low intelligence'?), then you try to make a point about group impressions using a group that absolutely DOES lie, in the performance of their duties they are TRAINED to lie to get information and/or compliance, and some are just natural liars to boot, and also a group that's historically well known as being incredibly over-defensive of their own, even when it's insanely obvious their own are in the wrong. I can't fathom how you think that makes a good point. (also not sure why you bring race into it again)

Another interpretation of the head shot evidence is that he was falling, having been shot multiple times already, and was shot in the top of the head on the way down. That was what more than one eye witness said happened. Are you implying that they were (low intelligence) criminalist masterminds that instantly knew what false story could still be born out by evidence, colluded, and gave that version? There was no gun shot residue on him, so he was not within arms length to grab anyone. That's fairly certain.

Yes, the DA certainly seemed to throw the case away. He did not act as prosecutor, (giving only evidence and interpretation that implies guilt,) but instead gave the jury all 'evidence' (including that which implied innocence, and allowed the jury to interpret it), allowed 'defense testimony' (without question, cross, or dispute), and gave insane legal instructions in order to confuse (like giving them the long invalidated law, then last minute telling them it might or might not apply, but don't worry why, it's not a law class). That's all totally abnormal, so the grand jury process was clearly abused by the DA with an aim to not get a trial. I'm fairly certain that's how most people see it too. It seemed fairly blatant.

I would agree that the more officers the better seems logical, but no longer holds true if ALL the officers over react (like 8 people on top of one man for an infraction, or never trying tasers because they 'might not stop the aggressor', even when there's already 10 officers with guns drawn). If officers tried the least amount of force required FIRST, rather than jump to the maximum allowed instantly, everyone would be happier. Sadly they do not.

If the feeling in the community (local and at large) was that this was an isolated incident, no amount of cajoling by a single distraught parent would cause rallies or riots. Instead they're happening across the country, and yet you blame a grieving father rather than the aggrieved's stated issue(s)/targets.

I'm glad that at least in the Garner case, you can see the injustice of killing an unarmed man (or even 'just' brutally attacking him) over such a minor infraction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cO2BLmc6yQ

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/not-war-its-12-year-old-boy-crowd-erupts-when-cop-beats-handcuffed-boy-video

One more example today why we DON'T think more cops is helpful, it's just more abusive. Proper use of force is no longer the norm.

Speaking from personal experience and while in uniform, I have gotten one death stare and innumerable positive comments from black folks who have said, have a nice day, have a safe day, etc.

I had one black guy who I was serving a summons on ask me if I was going to put him in a chokehold. I just ignored that statement and by the end of the conversation he said 'have a safe day, officer'. Because I treated him with respect.

But that's what most cops do.

Some inner-city cops don't put up with much shit from people, though, and they lose their perspective, but then they are dealing with far worse people on a daily basis.

The 'credible' evidence.

http://videosift.com/video/Key-Grand-Jury-Witness-in-Ferguson-Case-Exposed-As-A-Fraud

(thank you @speechless )

Witness 40? How many witnesses were there? Also, I don't consider TYT as credible.

At any rate, if the GJ were hornswoggled why doesn't someone come forward and dispute all of this? If there has been a travesty of justice, surely at least ONE person can come forward to get it straightened out. But I suppose, as in the OJ Simpson case, the judicial system is left to make it's own decisions.

You're commenting on the wrong video.
But I guess some people think they all look alike.

The videos all look alike?

If I was racist I would argue that Gardner was also deserving. No, I lost a great hero beside me in Iraq that were of the black skin. Further, his best friend was wounded in more ways than most people can imagine.

And you just stated what I stated--that the more men on Gardner was an inappropriate use of force...which incidentally makes me look like I did not agree with it.

As for the low intelligence comment, you have to understand. One, mobs are always of low intellect. No matter how smart each individual might be. Two, poor neighborhoods are statistically at a disadvantages in education, to say the least. That is more systemic racial policies at work. So yes, they are lower intellect for both of those reasons.

I remember once witnessing an accident. Immediately a woman stated her "eye-witness" account. I looked at her and wondered how the fuck she could have the accident as remotely backasswards as she did. In fact, had it not been for me, the wrong driver would have been cited. Only because I pointed out the physical evidence of where the damage was and that the car spun around did things come out correct. On a side note, she was definitely poor...

I know what Lantern said and he is worse than a Ferguson witness. He is inherently the type of never-changing sludgery that would make a fine Islamic fanatic if he were born in different circumstances. I only point this out because you used witnesses unjustly. Just like the woman in my situation was not a criminal mastermind, nevertheless she was not fit to speak. If there were a 100 women like her around, the same would hold true. And how long do you think everyone had to talk to each other? Definitely enough time to feed off one another.

Perhaps you might choose your words more carefully then, because your statement could easily be interpreted as racist...that's why I asked.

I stated that more police SEEMS to be a good solution to them over-reacting on it's face, but is actually not a good solution because they feed on each other and ALL over react, meaning more cops, more over reactions, unfortunately. If that's what you meant too, then we agree on at least one point.

Uneducated is NOT the same thing as unintelligent. You can fix the former, not the latter. As to the intellect of 'mobs', it's not applicable. This is not a mob we're discussing, it's a neighborhood with a number of individual witnesses, not a mob.
So, perhaps it's not racism but classism? You seem to be implying that poor people are all of lower intelligence, or do I misunderstand?

I will agree with you that eye witnesses are inherently untrustworthy, but if there were 100 women around that all gave the same story without talking to each other first, it would be incredibly unlikely they all made it up, would you not agree? Because they may have had time to speak to each other does not mean they did, I've never heard or seen any evidence (or before now even the implication) that they colluded. And if we suppose they all did speak together and came up with a story that, while a lie, also fit all the evidence (evidence which was yet to be collected or even found, btw), they would have to be criminal masterminds, no? Kind of hard to pull off in my opinion, especially if you're a group of below normal intelligence, uneducated thugs.