Tyre Nichols killing by Memphis police (1 Viewer)

[Lapaz]

I wanted to discuss the odd statistical anomaly about the races of the 5 cops that killed Tryre Nichols. I looked up the demographics of the Memphis police department, and 67% are white, 9% hispanic, and only 13% are black. That's only 89%, so I guess the rest are either a smaller racial group such as asians, or they didn't declare a race, in which case they are probably of mixed race. The 5 cops that were charged were all clearly black, not mixed race. I'm not a statistical expert, but I think the odds that all of the cops would be clearly black are 0.13^5, which is a 0.0037% chance of all cops being black, without any other intervening factors. It got me wondering about whether this extremely unlikely statistical anomaly could've happened without some type of internal Memphis policy. There could be other explanations, but I have a suspicion that it has to do with an internal decision within the Memphis police department to match the cop's race to the the suspect's race in order to try to avoid some of the racial bias claims that have been levied on other police departments. I haven't heard this anywhere, but I'm expecting this angle to be explored. If the Memphis police department is using such a policy, I blame it on our society making everything so racial that it is affecting how the police department decides to assign cops to avoid bad perceptions.

I'm also wondering if there will be claims that the cops were charged more quickly because they were black, whereas if the cops had been white, some may claim that they would not have been charged as quickly. Just after I wrote this, I heard a couple of blacks making this claim on the Dan Abrams Show. They were saying that they had never seen such quick charges, so it must be because they were black. I'm looking forward to seeing the videos, because maybe they were so egregious that any delays would've been an injustice. If so, then the Memphis police department deserves praise for acting quickly, rather than spinning it as a negative.

I'm also wondering how this incident would've been covered if the victim had been white, and all black cops. Maybe such an extremely unlikely scenario would've still been covered, but I have my doubts, because I've looked up the statistics, and more whites are killed by police than blacks, yet I don't remember the last white incident that was in the media. I know the demographics argument, but I think the problem is more of a media creation. I just heard a black lady on the Abrams show about how much more she has to be worried about her kid than a white lady. We may not even be hearing about this if the victim was white, and that over-coverage by the media is what creates the fear of cops in black mothers. Dan Abrams just told his callers that it is a media creation about black men being killed more often, but then he also went on to say that more blacks have unjustified interactions, which I think is also more of a media creation. I think the interactions are probably mostly based on suspicious actions, rather than race. Media over-coverage is the same reason that many people seem to believe that murder rates are much worse today than decades ago, despite the data indicating that murder rates have drastically declined.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, they took out retribution, and for that some will get jail time. Retribution is an important point. They were pissed at Nichols for his continued belligerence, and I think they thought he had attacked some cops at the first scene. The cops claimed he tried to grab their guns, and that might've been relayed to the cops at the 2nd scene. I also believe the cops said that he was driving against traffic, tried to hit the police cars by swerving into them, and repeatedly refused to pull over, in which case they might've also been pissed that he tried to use his vehicle as a weapon. It doesn't excuse the actions at the 2nd scene, but it makes it a heck of a lot more understandable.

From Memphis police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis "The Memphis Police Department has been unable to find anything to substantiate the probable cause for reckless driving" so no...

 

[UriUT]

Am I wrong in thinking that the only criteria for using that much force is whether the leos were in mortal danger or not? Shouldnt the burden of proving guilt be on the prosecutor, and the jury to decide? Why am I thinking this line of questioning Nichols guilt is just inconsequential when I see that video? Because what I saw are cops holding up an already submitted person and punching him over and over. None of the leos are in any danger.

 

[Dragon]

If the chief of police says they can't find any evidence of him driving recklessly ( probably dashboard cameras - but I don't know) then the big question is why did they even stop and pull him out of his car???

 

[Lapaz]

From Memphis police Chief Cerelyn “CJ” Davis "The Memphis Police Department has been unable to find anything to substantiate the probable cause for reckless driving" so no...

Well if they don’t find probable cause, then the first group of cops will also be in a lot of trouble. If so, then why haven’t they been charged? I’ll be surprised if those stories were concocted, because the dash cams would prove the truth. Additionally, street cams probably can be found with video.

Nevertheless, there was no justification for resisting like Tyree did. I speak from first hand experience, because I was also accused of reckless driving once about 35 years ago. I voluntarily stopped, yet the cop started screaming profanity and threatened to blow my head off with his gun at my temple, then yanked me out of my car, then threw me against the car, then threw me to the ground, and then put his foot on my back. I also told him that I didn’t do anything, and protested verbally, but I didn’t resist physically. Several other cops subsequently treated me poorly, but not nearly as badly. The initial cop probably told them some lies about me. This was all before dash and body cams. Had there been cams, that cop would’ve been in a lot of trouble. Since I didn’t resist, things turned out fine for me and I was justifiably acquitted.

Tyree may have also been innocent, but he wasn’t acting innocent after he got pulled out the car. Whether he was innocent or not of reckless driving, his resisting arrest made him guilty. That doesn’t justify the actions of the cops, but I think the precipitating actions matter.

 

[Lapaz]

Am I wrong in thinking that the only criteria for using that much force is whether the leos were in mortal danger or not? Shouldnt the burden of proving guilt be on the prosecutor, and the jury to decide? Why am I thinking this line of questioning Nichols guilt is just inconsequential when I see that video? Because what I saw are cops holding up an already submitted person and punching him over and over. None of the leos are in any danger.

The cops in the 2nd stop went way too far, and will get jail time, but
Nichol’s actions is a mitigating factor. He seems to be under their control when the abuse began, and I think that was retribution for his prior actions. Cops aren’t supposed to take retribution, but I think juries will consider the prior actions.

 

[Dragon]

Well if they don’t find probable cause, then the first group of cops will also be in a lot of trouble. If so, then why haven’t they been charged? I’ll be surprised if those stories were concocted, because the dash cams would prove the truth. Additionally, street cams probably can be found with video.

Nevertheless, there was no justification for resisting like Tyree did. I speak from first hand experience, because I was also accused of reckless driving once about 35 years ago. I voluntarily stopped, yet the cop started screaming profanity and threatened to blow my head off with his gun at my temple, then yanked me out of my car, then threw me against the car, then threw me to the ground, and then put his foot on my back. I also told him that I didn’t do anything, and protested verbally, but I didn’t resist physically. Several other cops subsequently treated me poorly, but not nearly as badly. The initial cop probably told them some lies about me. This was all before dash and body cams. Had there been cams, that cop would’ve been in a lot of trouble. Since I didn’t resist, things turned out fine for me and I was justifiably acquitted.

Tyree may have also been innocent, but he wasn’t acting innocent after he got pulled out the car. Whether he was innocent or not of reckless driving, his resisting arrest made him guilty. That doesn’t justify the actions of the cops, but I think the precipitating actions matter.

I don't really get it. If a cop stops you and pull you out of the car for no reason at all, slam you against the trunk and then into the ground threatning violence, YOU break the law if you resist. How much harm do you have to accept before you are allowed to resist ?

 

[Taurus]

I don't really get it. If a cop stops you and pull you out of the car for no reason at all, slam you against the trunk and then into the ground threatning violence, YOU break the law if you resist. How much harm do you have to accept before you are allowed to resist ?

Right up until he kills you.

I wish I was joking.

 

[Dragon]

Right up until he kills you.

I wish I was joking.

Something is seriously rotten.......
IMHO laws really need to be changed

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

The cops in the 2nd stop went way too far, and will get jail time, but
Nichol’s actions is a mitigating factor. He seems to be under their control when the abuse began, and I think that was retribution for his prior actions. Cops aren’t supposed to take retribution, but I think juries will consider the prior actions.

You keep talking about the cops in the "second stop" as if they're different police officers than those who pulled him over originally? Who says that? I haven't read that. Maybe additional officers arrived on the scene but the officers involved in the original stop were part of the final incident as far as I can tell.

 

[Lapaz]

You keep talking about the cops in the "second stop" as if they're different police officers than those who pulled him over originally? Who says that? I haven't read that. Maybe additional officers arrived on the scene but the officers involved in the original stop were part of the final incident as far as I can tell.

There was at least 1 white cop at the first encounter. You could see his arms later when helping the black cop that got pepper sprayed. The white cop said he got spray on his eyebrows. I don’t know if none of the cops at the first scene were at the 2nd scene, but I’m pretty sure that neither of those were at the 2nd scene.

 

[Lapaz]

I don't really get it. If a cop stops you and pull you out of the car for no reason at all, slam you against the trunk and then into the ground threatning violence, YOU break the law if you resist. How much harm do you have to accept before you are allowed to resist ?

It’s easy. Cops have the authority and you have to put up with crap. Cops that do abuse people should get punished, but they can push the limits of legality, yet if you resist physically, then you are now at fault.

 

[Lapaz]

Right up until he kills you.

I wish I was joking.

This is extreme hyperbole fed by the media. In 2018, over 60 million people encountered a cop, and about 1000 resulted in a cop killing.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf

 

[Taurus]

This is extreme hyperbole fed by the media. In 2018, over 60 million people encountered a cop, and about 1000 resulted in a cop killing.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf

So, when can you legally resist?
That was the question.

 

[SystemShock]

I don't really get it. If a cop stops you and pull you out of the car for no reason at all, slam you against the trunk and then into the ground threatning violence, YOU break the law if you resist. How much harm do you have to accept before you are allowed to resist ?

More like defend yourself,

 

[Lapaz]

So, when can you legally resist?
That was the question.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you can legally resist when cops perform actions that would generally lead to seriously injuring a person, such as punching and kicking you, which occurred in the second encounter. Throwing someone against a car and then down on the ground isn't enough to be considered trying to seriously injure you, such as occurred on the first encounter. It may be inappropriate, and it could lead to injury, but that wouldn't normally be considered the intent. Of course, I would think cops that do that routinely should get punished, because they shouldn't have to use excessive force routinely, but in my opinion, such actions would go up to the line, yet not cross it. Tyree was justified to resist in the 2nd encounter, but he was already guilty of resisting arrest due to his resistance in the first encounter.

 

[Taurus]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you can legally resist when cops perform actions that would generally lead to seriously injuring a person, such as punching and kicking you, which occurred in the second encounter. Throwing someone against a car and then down on the ground isn't enough to be considered trying to seriously injure you, such as occurred on the first encounter. It may be inappropriate, and it could lead to injury, but that wouldn't normally be considered the intent. Of course, I would think cops that do that routinely should get punished, because they shouldn't have to use excessive force routinely, but in my opinion, such actions would go up to the line, yet not cross it. Tyree was justified to resist in the 2nd encounter, but he was already guilty of resisting arrest due to his resistance in the first encounter.

Ever see the Life of Brian? You have the "right" to resist like a man has the "right" to bear children. IE: It technically exists, but it's virtually impossible to actually make use of.

Resisting Arrest When Police Use Excessive Force

Resisting Arrest When Police Use Excessive Force

Typically, arrestees have a right to defend against an officer's use of excessive force that's likely to cause great bodily injuries, but only in limited cases.

www.nolo.com

While arrestees generally have a right to defend against excessive force used in an arrest, this right is very limited.​

By Michael Tarleton | Updated by Rebecca Pirius, Attorney

It's rare that someone being placed under arrest has the right to forcefully resist. But, in most states, if the arresting officer uses excessive force that could cause "great bodily harm" or death, arrestees have the right to defend themselves. That's because most states hold that an officer's use of excessive force amounts to assault or battery, which a victim has a right to defend against.


This article will review these concepts in more detail below.

Laws on Resisting Arrest​

Generally speaking, people don't have the right to resist arrest. In many states, this rule applies whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful. The rationale behind prohibiting people from resisting arrests (even for illegal arrests) is that resistance can escalate the situation and make it dangerous for the arrestee, officers, and bystanders. In most instances, the matter of an illegal arrest can be better and more safely handled in the courtroom than on the streets.
However, if an officer uses excessive force that could result in great bodily harm or death, a person can defend themself against such harm. Here, serious bodily harm or loss of life cannot be repaired in the courtroom. And many states equate the person's actions to self-defense rather than resisting.

Right to Defend Against Excessive Force by Police​

While most states recognize a right to defend oneself against excessive force, the arrestee still has some tough hurdles to overcome under the law.

Officer's Use of Excessive Force​

An officer's use of force is "excessive" if it's likely to result in unjustifiable, great bodily harm (serious injury). Most states consider whether a "reasonable person" under the circumstances would have believed that the officer's use of force was likely to cause great physical harm, including death.

Amount of Force Used in Self-Defense​

On the rare occasion that a court finds that an arrestee was entitled to resist excessive force, the determination shifts to whether the amount of force used was appropriate. Although the precise rules vary by state, in general, the amount of force used to resist arrest must be proportional to the amount of excessive force used by the arresting officer. An arrestee's use of force is not justified if it's more than necessary to fend off the attack or free oneself.
Overall, these are high standards to meet—so high that courts hardly ever find that an arrestee's forceful resistance was defensible.

So once you're in a chokehold and things are growing dim, then you have the right to resist. But only to the extent of getting out of the hold. During which time, the pigs buddies are going to...stand by and watch? Suuuure

 

[coldseat]

Well if they don’t find probable cause, then the first group of cops will also be in a lot of trouble. If so, then why haven’t they been charged? I’ll be surprised if those stories were concocted, because the dash cams would prove the truth. Additionally, street cams probably can be found with video.

I'm a little late to responding to the video, but all of your post sense the release of the video are so disappointing, yet predictable. It all amounts to excuse making for the cops. Everything that happened in the interaction between Tyre and those cops, was caused and precipitated by the cops actions. EVERYTHING! The only drug I see Tyre reacting to throughout his final encounter is adrenaline from fear of being murdered by the cops. A fear that was justified and that in the end, Tyre was right about. The cops should have never approached his car the way that they did, they should have never dragged him out of his car, they should have never beaten him and thrown him around. All of that was unjustified and illegal. And that's just the start of it, it's not even the main beating and murder. Those cops are guilty of murder and those standing around not stopping it are guilty as accessories.

Nevertheless, there was no justification for resisting like Tyree did. I speak from first hand experience, because I was also accused of reckless driving once about 35 years ago. I voluntarily stopped, yet the cop started screaming profanity and threatened to blow my head off with his gun at my temple, then yanked me out of my car, then threw me against the car, then threw me to the ground, and then put his foot on my back. I also told him that I didn’t do anything, and protested verbally, but I didn’t resist physically. Several other cops subsequently treated me poorly, but not nearly as badly. The initial cop probably told them some lies about me. This was all before dash and body cams. Had there been cams, that cop would’ve been in a lot of trouble. Since I didn’t resist, things turned out fine for me and I was justifiably acquitted.

I honestly can't believe you had this experience in your past and still can't identify with the fear that Tyre had in his fatal encounter with the cops. You had to deal with one cop beating on you and throwing you around. He had to deal with 5+. How was he to think that he was going to make it out of that alive when the cops weren't even treating him as a human being. Tyre begged them take it easy, he was calm during the initial overreaction by police, he was clearly scared and not understanding what was going on, he had all the cops yelling conflicting orders in between them restraining, beating and throwing him around, and he cried out for his mother at the end. All I see in that video is a guy who's scared out of his mind. Where is the recognition of Tyree's humanity in anything that the cops did?

Tyree may have also been innocent, but he wasn’t acting innocent after he got pulled out the car. Whether he was innocent or not of reckless driving, his resisting arrest made him guilty. That doesn’t justify the actions of the cops, but I think the precipitating actions matter.

This is just plain and utter bullshirt. I guess there's no presumption of innocence any more in this country. Tyre's resisting arrest does not make him guilty, it's proof of his fear of losing his life.

 

[SFIDC3]

I'm a little late to responding to the video, but all of your post sense the release of the video are so disappointing, yet predictable. It all amounts to excuse making for the cops. Everything that happened in the interaction between Tyree and those cops, was caused and precipitated by the cops actions. EVERYTHING! The only drug I see Tyree reacting to throughout his final encounter is adrenaline from fear of being murdered by the cops. A fear that was justified and that in the end, Tyree was right about. The cops should have never approached his car the way that they did, they should have never dragged him out of his car, they should have never beaten him and thrown him around. All of that was unjustified and illegal. And that's just the start of it, it's not even the main beating and murder. Those cops are guilty of murder and those standing around not stopping it are guilty as accessories.



I honestly can't believe you had this experience in your past and still can't identify with the fear that Tyree had in his fatal encounter with the cops. You had to deal with one cop beating on you and throwing you around. He had to deal with 5+. How was he to think that he was going to make it out of that alive when the cops weren't even treating him as a human being. Tyree begged them take it easy, he was calm during the initial overreaction by police, he was clearly scared and not understanding what was going on, he had all the cops yelling conflicting orders in between them restraining, beating and throwing him around, and he cried out for his mother at the end. All I see in that video is a guy who's scared out of his mind. Where is the recognition of Tyree's humanity in anything that the cops did?



This is just plain and utter bullshirt. I guess there's no presumption of innocence any more in this country. Tyree's resisting arrest does not make him guilty, it's proof of his fear of losing his life.

Thanks for this, every time I read a post of his on this it just makes me angrier.....total and utterly tone deaf....ugh....