Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thoughts on the Killing of Eric Garner
About five years ago I worked in a group home with ten developmentally disabled adults. That kind of human services field requires some training, because without meaning to, people, human beings, who often can’t care for themselves, can be accidentally killed by the staff.
The folks I worked with all had, and this is the technical term, profound mental retardation. It took different forms in different people, and some of the people I worked with had behaviors. So each resident had an individualized behavioral support plan. Something along the lines of “If they do this behavior X, you should do Y.” And the responses to a behavior always started with the least invasive and worked towards the most invasive.
We went through a training called SCIP, Strategies in Crisis Intervention and Prevention, which was mandated by the State of New York. It was a week long training, some of it in a classroom, and some of it in a room with mats on the floor. Put simply, SCIP teaches you how to take somebody down, when necessary, without killing them. It’s very easy to accidentally kill a person with developmental disabilities without meaning to. (In fact, the SCIP that I took was SCIP-R, R for revised, because it was modified based on the potential for accidental strangulation.)
The most simple thing was the one-person escort, where you guide someone out of a room. The final and most invasive thing was a full body wrap when you end up with your arms around a person, basically spooning them on the floor (thus, the mats). This is necessary because sometimes a resident could potentially be a danger to themselves or others.
In my personal experience, other than training, I never had to do anything like that. I never went further than the one-person escort. Why? Because most of SCIP was focused on the non-physical aspects. We were taught how to de-escalate a situation. Every situation is different, but I would have considered it a failure on my part if I ever had to SCIP (we used it as a verb) any of my guys. I wouldn’t have let it get that far.
And so we come to the killing of Eric Garner. I watched the video of this and it really bothered me. I realize that a police situation is different from a group home, but I also realize that not every police situation is the North Hollywood Shootout. That situation didn’t need to get physical.
If I done that in the group home to a resident, taken a person down like that, and put them in a choke hold, I would be in jail right now. Rightly so. The difference is that I was working in a culture where getting physical was the last resort. The NYPD is clearly a culture where non-compliance seems to be immediately met with physical violence. A week or two later, NYPD cops put a pregnant lady in a choke hold for cooking on the sidewalk. And the cops know that even when there’s video that they can get away with it. The incentive structure favors the cops getting physical right away, because as any child knows (until someone tells them not to) it’s a lot quicker and easier to hit someone to get your message across than to talk to them.
Maybe they couldn’t have talked Eric Garner down, but he was pleading with the cops before they wrestled him to the ground and choked him to death. He didn’t have a gun. He didn’t have a knife. He was just talking. It didn’t have to go down that way.
Published in General
For anyone who has suggested that the argument about whether or not Garner’s death was just depends on claims not in evidence, I have to ask one question. How is the tactic any different than the speculative cries of racism coming from Michael Brown’s supporters? Brown’s supporters want to conclude that Brown’s death was unjust and illegal, so they insist that in their deliberations about the case, everyone weigh the purely speculative claims that Wilson could have been a racist equally or more heavily than the actual claims about the incident. How is raising questions about the unclaimed facts surrounding Garner’s death any different? Why is the tactic of discussing speculation instead of actual claims not every bit an unseemly, thesis-driven effort to salvage an argument against Garner as it is an unseemly, thesis-driven effort to acquit Brown and convict Wilson?
I wanted to post one more time because I’ve seen a lot of unclaimed possbilities offered in service of arguments. I’ve never seen a party to the case claim that Garner was a low-level crime boss or syndicate foot soldier. I’ve never seen a party to the case claim that any conflict resolution other than arrest was tried. I’ve never seen a party to the case claim that the grand jury’s decision depended on claims not in evidence in the public record. (The Breitbart article was very clear that the grand jury’s decision could have depended on nothing more than the video and still have been legally correct.)
Repeatedly offering such claims as argument is illegitimate in rational discussion. I could just as easily have offered wild speculation that the officer with an arm around Garner’s neck secretly harbored racist motives. What would be the difference from claiming that Garner must have done something to deserve it?
Who is doing that besides you? For example, you’ve argued that what transpired before the video started is relevant.
I’ve already said, I’ve watched the video and looked at the evidence and determined that I agree with Jack Dunphy that excessive force was not used. You claimed to have looked at the exact same evidence and reached the exact opposite conclusion. Neither of those view points has anything to do with the word “just”. This is not a black and white case, it’s full of grey no matter what.
I’ve only suggested that additional evidence COULD be contained in the Grand Jury testimony that MIGHT give additional insight into whether your “summons” idea had a snowballs chance of working. None of that addresses whether his death was “just”, I don’t know what that word means in this context. Was it “just” that we breaking the law and selling untaxed cigarettes? Was it “just” that he resisted arrest? Was it “just” that he got so morbidly obese living on welfare that could not exert the effort required to keep a government job?
Here is what I know, if Garner had not resisted arrest, he would alive today. For some reason, that is not good enough for you.
I will repost Dunphy’s closing sentences.
That effectively sums up my feelings on the case. I may disagree with the law, but I think even the bad laws should be enforced, and I don’t want the guys designated to protect me from the bad guys to walk around afraid to enforce the law.
You appear to want your cake and eat it too (ie, you want cops to enforce the law when it’s convenient for the accused and not give the accused any hurty-feelers). I want peace in the Middle East. Let’s see which one of us gets our wish first.
First of all, where did I claim that what happened before the video began is relevant? Do you have a quote? I have been arguing that the public statements by all parties so far seem to suggest that the events before the start of the video don’t change the tone of the video, and even if there are unknown facts in Garner’s case, conclusions about Garner’s case don’t affect my point about policing procedures.
You and Basil Fawlty are discussing claims not in evidence, and I have restricted my discussion to the publicly made claims. I asked both of you multiple times for one news source indicating that Garner was offered a summons and refused to cooperate, was simply told to move along and refused to cooperate, had been violent with the police or citizens around the time of the arrest, or had a documented history of violence. You have refused to produce a named and accountable source. (As I said, GotNews is an interesting source of gossip, but it’s not a news enterprise.The maintainer isn’t checking his reports against actual arrest reports, so the claims are completely unsubstantiated. Because it’s only a small website and not a news enterprise, it’s practically unaccountable for libel. For example, it reported two days ago that Jackie Coakley had accused people of rape when she was a high school student, but it later had to retract the claim.) Do you have a news account claiming that the police tried something before arrest? Do you have a news account that Garner was a career, violent criminal? Do you have a news account that the grand jury heard evidence not available to the public? Did the NYPD give an account of the incident substantially different from the public understanding?
If you have any evidence of the claims, you haven’t presented it, and I’m not willing to discuss speculations that are intended to justify a desired outcome after the fact. So far, there is far better reason to suspect that Pantaleo might have provoked the incident than there is to support your speculations about Garner, but rational discussions deal in the known facts instead of convenient speculations.
Resorting to basic disagreements about the idea of justice isn’t going to settle the issue in your favor. As I’ve already said, you can believe that the outcome was just. I don’t agree with you. I view justice differently. A great many conservatives don’t agree with you. Instead of trying to muddy the waters with arguments about justice, we can agree to disagree.
The only reason that I’m still arguing with you is that you continue to caricature my position. I have argued for full enforcement of the law. Full enforcement is not defined by the procedure of arrest, handcuffing, and strip-searching, if strip-searching is used in New York City. Arrest is one technique of law enforcement. I am recommending using a broader set of techniques because I think that the broader set of techniques will achieve better results, in my opinion, greater trust in the police and support for the police, fewer civilian fatalities, and possibly more effective enforcement.
Will you stop misstating my position? Please, answer the question, and don’t tell me that my position is effectively what you say without proof that my plan will not work. If you claim that I’ve advocated for lax enforcement, supply a quote. I’m not insisting that you agree or that you are wrong to believe that my suggestions won’t work. I have supported my position with evidence. The question can probably only be decided empirically, and before a test of the proposal or a logically dispositive counterargument, we should be able to agree to disagree.
Here is one of the several times where you claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
You have continually argued that if evidence of X existed, we would know about it, therefore, no evidence of X exists.
Here you explicitly acknowledge that additional evidence would change your mind, evidence that COULD have been presented to the Grand Jury.
FWIW, I think your story is very informative. You obviously think you were wrongly treated, and I think it is POSSIBLE that your experience emotionally scarred you and biased you to believe that hauling innocent people to jail is rampant and as a result, you want to initiate a system that will every where and always prevent what happened to you from happening to other people.
I only saying you experience COULD have biased you, I’m not ASSERTING that it biased you, and because I am saying it COULD have biased you without ASSERTING that it did, you can’t disprove the possibility that I’m right, therefore, I am right and you are wrong. (Isn’t that effectively the same tactic you’ve used in this entire conversation?)
Trust me, we are quite capable of agreeing to disagree. I made that decision a long time ago.
I have trouble finding reports on comparative policing practices around the world—I was looking because I believe that handcuffing all arrested suspects and the idea of strip-searching all arrested suspects are peculiar to a few countries and widely considered unnecessary in other places—but while searching I found a great example of the bureaucratic rigidity and inhumanity that I’m talking about.
Police say handcuffed girl shows policy gap
Apparently, Portland police handcuffed a nine year-old girl at her home in her bathing suit to take her into custody while investigating a fight at a local youth club. The state never pursued any charges.
If a parent handcuffed a child, the parent could probably be charged with child abuse. The police hid behind policy to justify an outrageous act. I believe from observation and experience that police commonly, blindly apply procedures and hide behind policy to justify outrageous acts, and we’ve just largely learned to put up with the outrages.
From the article:
I just cited this case because it appeared on the first page of my Google search results for handcuffing policies around the world. I read about similar cases all of the time, cases of elementary school children taken from a campus in handcuffs because of some overreation justified by a zero tolerance policy. Look at the results for the search, child handcuffed by police. I have to think that for every case in the news, there must be several more that never get attention simply because the targets don’t have the time, energy, or courage to complain.
I’m calling out the defenders of universal handcuffing. Please, put down your marker. Is this acceptable to you? Would you want your young daughters treated as this young girl was treated simply because she came under investigation? If not, why not?
Now, I’m speaking to everyone who finds the cases offensive, so if you are going to justify the acts, please, don’t waste time answering the following question: why are we putting up with acts in unnecessary police routines that when done by anyone else would constitute a crime?
You mostly quote yourself here. I do not say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I say that you offered no evidence, and I asked you for the evidence. That is the only meaning of my words. If you’re not offering evidence, you’re asking to argue about your speculations.
Who is defending universal handcuffing? I don’t see anyone arguing that everyone should be handcuffed. I just see a few people disagreeing with you that Eric Garner should not have been handcuffed.
Look, I get it. you were handcuffed, stripped-searched once and they took your shoelaces to prevent you from hanging yourself. I’ve been handcuffed too, but I got over it. Let’s face it. You and Eric Garner were arrested under very different circumstances. Just because you got a bum rap does not mean every street arrest is a bum rap.
This is an egregious lift out of context.You don’t even quote the whole sentence. I wrote the following.
Your conclusion that I would have changed my mind is incorrect. I had clearly said that I hadn’t condemned the police and had said in other places that the video itself may be sufficient to absolve the police of criminal liability, so I was not changing my position. Care to try again?
Meh, you said several times that if there was evidence, we would know about it. Do you really want me to go back through your posts and quote you back to yourself again? If so, I will do so, but it will have to be tomorrow. I’ve done enough reading of your weasel wordsmithing and capitalizations for one night.
Wait a minute, now the criteria is criminal liability? I thought you were asking us to defend the “just”ness of the actions?
If you aren’t condemning the actions of police, why are you suggesting that we restraining their actions?
First of all, I wasn’t strip-searched. I said that strip-searching was standard practice in my hometown, but I was never arrested in my hometown. At least get the facts straight.
I do think that I was wrongly treated, and I’m entitled to the opinion. Again, you misstate my position. There is no way to avoid some false complaints and needless arrests. There are some accusations that raise the possibility of risk to the police and justify handcuffing and other more invasive procedures. I have never said that the practices should never be used. I have said that they cannot be justified in all cases. I guess that you’re not going to honestly restate my positions.
I said that you were biased because you justified your arrest procedures by saying that the procedures used with your arrest taught you a lesson and steered you away from future indiscretions. The comment implicitly assumes that anyone arrested did something wrong. The comment is biased by definition. It doesn’t consider the other possibility at all. By contrast, here was what I wrote exactly.
By reflecting both the possibility of guilt and the possibility of innocence, the text completely encapsulates the difference between my state of mind and your state of mind. Since my proposals assume that people commit crimes, too, I’m at a loss to see the bias, but, please, show me what I’m neglecting to consider.
As for my argument tactic, I can actually tell you my opinions on this issue, so I can simply assert what I think to refute your point. The issue is my state of mind, and the only witnesses to my state of mind are my words and actions. You can try to impeach my testimony. You are free to question me and to examine my answers to determine if there is bias. My biases need not be a subject of speculation. Your analogy to Garner is incorrect because Garner is dead. We cannot ask him anything to determine how he may have reacted to different police tactics. At least regarding the reasons for his distress over arrest, determining Garner’s state of mind when arrested to a legal or any practical as opposed to mathematical standard of proof is and always will be impossible. Do you see the difference?
I stand corrected. You were not stripped searched.
I don’t believe that I said that if there were evidence, then we would know about it, so yes, I would like you to quote me. It’s clearly an absurd claim—I don’t believe in human omniscience—and if I did say it, then since I said clearly to you and Basil Fawlty not once but many times that your speculations could be true, I clearly misspoke. I might have said that if there were more claims, then I think that we would have heard about them by now, but I don’t recall asserting that we know everything. Once, in an exercise in answering your speculations with speculations, I suggested that if the police had a better narrative, then I think that they would have presented it by now. I made the comments only as part of saying that I have tried to remain fully informed on the subject and to explain why I will not deal in your speculation. There is a standard of evidence in debate or in court, and speculation does not normally count as evidence. Anyway, I’m interested to see if you can find the claim in my words.
In all of these posts you have yet to produce evidence that would raise your claims from the level of self-serving speculation to the level of testimony, in other words, evidence. Do you have a report of testimonial evidence?
No, I wasn’t asking you to defend the actions as just. I already said that justice is only vaguely defined in general and not a productive topic for discussion. The only objective standard of justice is legal, and I’ve stipulated all along that the police acts could be rationally viewed as complying with the law. I was criticizing policing in general as using unnecessarily physical and where policing techniques cause harm or death to innocent civilians, undesirable and possibly far from optimal. You and Basil Fawlty seem to be resisting the suggestion that policing be broadened with other techniques based on the belief that the techniques wouldn’t have worked if used with Garner.
Which bullet describes your position? I honestly don’t know. If you’re making an argument in response to a different position, I don’t see it. Maybe you can settle the issue by picking a point and responding concisely or by briefly stating your own point.
I’m suggesting that we try to restrain police actions as a matter of policy because authorizing physically invasive techniques without any restraint or firm guidelines at all produces moral outrages like the routine handcuffing of small children and the needless strip-searching of innocents. If you don’t share the moral outrage, then we don’t have anything to discuss, but if you don’t share the outrage, then you appear to be condoning the status quo. You asked who endorsed the universal handcuffing and strip-searching policies, and I’m saying that if you’re arguing against any any prior restraint by law or policy or any guidelines discouraging the tactics in situations where the tactics cannot be justified by enumerated criteria, then you appear to be arguing for universal handcuffing and universal strip-searches.
Now, I see to what you are referring. I started one post as follows.
I’m not asking anyone to prove that the death was just. I maintain that based on the evidence in the record, I think that the death was unjust. People keep assailing me with speculations that are not to my knowledge, in the record. I addressed the post as I addressed it because I really don’t know what you or the others are trying to prove. In general, I didn’t asking you to establish a rational order for justice and prove that Garner’s death was just, so I don’t understand your objections.
In many of these posts, the points under debate are only implied, and some of the positions are lost in a mass of text. Here are the issues that I see under discussion complete with my answers and what I don’t understand about your argument with me or other arguments with me.
The first two points don’t have any direct connection to my original post on the topic. Others tried to make the first two issues important, and without some larger agenda, I fail to see the point. Who knows why we have been discussing the first two? Only the last three points relate to my claim. People have largely ignored the last two issues, and on the third point, I clearly offered a very modest opinion that Garner may have been less distressed and resistant to less invasive arrest procedures and implied that a different policy could have aovided the tragedy. Here are my words exactly as the appeared in the first post.
Why all of the arguments? The only explanation that I can imagine for the arguments is that everyone feels a certain moral repugnance at the death, and trying to bully people into saying that the arrest was justified and absolutely necessary and as a result, that the death was entirely Garner’s moral fault is an attempt to avoid the crisis of conscience that accompanies accepting policies that seem to contribute to unjust deaths.
Last post for the day: I reviewed every single one of my posts on this topic, and I can say conclusively that you are incorrect. I did not say that all facts are known. Why don’t you take another look at the posts? I have only ever said that in a debate as in a court, you can only discuss and weigh the facts or claims in evidence, and I have asked you for evidence for any of your speculative claims. Do you have some kind of testimony or documentary evidence? I think that I’ve asked around half a dozen times, but you still haven’t produced anything aside from the uncredited claims, in other words, gossip, in the GotNews post.
I sense that you find irritating not being able to reformulate my points with your own words so that they no longer resemble my points but instead make the argument that you’d like to rebut, but precision in writing is not weasel wordsmithing. I get to state my argument. If you don’t like my position, you are free to say that you don’t like it, but if you want to rebut my claim, you have to actually correctly represent it.