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.

 

[Lapaz]

Or if you try to obey three different, conflicting orders.
Or if you flinch.
Or if you open your front door, hands in the air.
Or if you dare sleep in your own bed.
Or if your bootlicking skills just aren't up to snuff.
And especially if you're uppity enough to dare protest the above.

I've never said that there aren't unjustified killings. You can find bad people in all walks of life, but the vast majority of encounters with cops are good and non-violent. Verbal protesting doesn't generally get you killed. Physical protesting can get you hurt. You also make the mistake of lumping all victims together. Every circumstance has to be considered on its own.

 

[coldseat]

Have I said at any point that the cops in the 2nd encounter are not guilty? The most that I allowed is that there will be a question about whether they meant or knew he would die, but they are at least guilty of manslaughter. I don't blame Nichols for dying, but it remains to be seen whether it will be murder. I do blame Nichols for resisting arrest, and I blame the cops for an awful assault and abuse. This isn't like a rape victim. Teasing and tempting someone to rape you is dangerous, but not against the law. Nichols didn't tease that he would resist arrest. He actually resisted arrest, and that is against the law. You make excuses for Nichols as though he was totally innocent. I haven't made excuses for the cops in the 2nd encounter. I always make a distinction, because at least some of the cops were different cops. The cops at the first encounter tried hard to get him to comply without hitting Nichols, despite purportedly dangerous actions by Nichols. The cops at the 2nd encounter were charged with murder, but I believe they may only be guilty of manslaughter. That doesn't excuse their actions, but it acknowledges that there may not have been an intent to kill Nichols.

Where I differ from most posting here is that I see guilt on both sides, while all of you that are responding to me are giving Nichols a total pass. The actions of the cops is worse, and the punishment for Nichols' shouldn't have been his life, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty as well.

Nichols reaction in the 1st encounter was driven out of fear. I have no doubt that if those cops had approached him and his vehicle in the same way that most ordinary traffic stop occur (i.e. no swat team approach and take down), nothing like this would have played out. He never would have ran. And he wasn't afraid because of the the news media told him to be either. I don't see what he did as resisting arrest from his standpoint. From Nichols stand point, what he did was run for his life. It was the over aggressiveness and lack of humanity of the approach and tactics by the cops in the 1st encounter that led to everything else.

I think what drives our difference of opinion is just simply empathy for Nichols and the position he was in, in that moment. Had I been in his position I would have been scared out of my mind. I don't know how I would have reacted, but I can truly understand why he chose to run. I suppose it's easy for some to say that he is at fault for resisting arrest and it's all on him. But all I have is sympathy for the guy and now his family, because it never had to happen. And I don't blame him for that! He was just driving home. The same thing all of us do, every day.

 

[Lapaz]

Nichols reaction in the 1st encounter was driven out of fear. I have no doubt that if those cops had approached him and his vehicle in the same way that most ordinary traffic stop occur (i.e. no swat team approach and take down), nothing like this would have played out. He never would have ran. And he wasn't afraid because of the the news media told him to be either. I don't see what he did as resisting arrest from his standpoint. From Nichols stand point, what he did was run for his life. It was the over aggressiveness and lack of humanity of the approach and tactics by the cops in the 1st encounter that led to everything else.

I think what drives our difference of opinion is just simply empathy for Nichols and the position he was in, in that moment. Had I been in his position I would have been scared out of my mind. I don't know how I would have reacted, but I can truly understand why he chose to run. I suppose it's easy for some to say that he is at fault for resisting arrest and it's all on him. But all I have is sympathy for the guy and now his family, because it never had to happen. And I don't blame him for that! He was just driving home. The same thing all of us do, every day.

I have been yanked out of a car and mistreated by a cop that threatened to kill me, yet I didn’t physically resist. I do not empathize with behaving like Nichols did. I have empathy for cops that have to restrain suspects that are fighting them. You can be afraid and yet follow orders. Anyone who fights an arrest like he did is a criminal in my mind. There is no excuse for behaving like that unless the cops are trying to kill you. If he believed that, then he’s been fooled by the huge amount of media coverage of the rare killings.

 

[coldseat]

I have been yanked out of a car and mistreated by a cop that threatened to kill me, yet I didn’t physically resist.

Why do you expect Nichols to react the same way you did in a much scarier and more stressful situation than you where in with 4 cops taking him down as opposed to the one cop in your situation?

I do not empathize with behaving like Nichols did. I have empathy for cops that have to restrain suspects that are fighting them. You can be afraid and yet follow orders. Anyone who fights an arrest like he did is a criminal in my mind. There is no excuse for behaving like that unless the cops are trying to kill you. If he believed that, then he’s been fooled by the huge amount of media coverage of the rare killings.

We just completely disagree here. You're wrong. In Nichols mind, the cops where trying to kill him. How can you say he was wrong, when you where not there and are not him? He wasn't fooled at all, he was reacting to what was happening. It really does come down to empathy and you proved as much with this statement.

Also, before we start expecting every citizen to act like a model citizen in every interaction with a cop, lest they be killed, why don't we first expect the cops, who we pay and train with public money, to act like model cops?

 

[Saintamaniac]

Have I said at any point that the cops in the 2nd encounter are not guilty?

You keep a laser focus on the "2nd encounter" because you are using the first encounter as an excuse for what happened at the 2nd encounter. Either that or you believe the sentence for resisting arrest is death. Stop with this 1st encounter bullshirt. Resisting arrest is not justification for murder. I personally don't give a damn if he kicked one of the cops in their groin and busted both of their nuts. Even THAT is not justification for murder.

but it remains to be seen whether it will be murder

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse. This was murder. It doesn't need to remain to be seen. Nichols was killed unlawfully and without justification.

Teasing and tempting someone to rape you is dangerous, but not against the law. Nichols didn't tease that he would resist arrest.

Nichols should not be dead. He was murdered by police. He didn't tempt the to kill him. None of his actions, whether resisting or not, was justification for his murder.

You make excuses for Nichols as though he was totally innocent.

Quote me where I make excuses for Nichols or even claimed he was innocent. The only excuses being made are being made by you for the police actions.

Where I differ from most posting here is that I see guilt on both sides, while all of you that are responding to me are giving Nichols a total pass.

Again, the sentence for resisting arrest is NOT death. The difference between you and the rest of us is that we see a human being that was beaten to death whereas you see a thing that is no longer alive. Nichols shouldn't be dead, full stop. Anything other than that is a feeble attempt to place blame on a murder victim for being murdered.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

.................................................................. Anyone who fights an arrest like he did is a criminal in my mind. There is no excuse for behaving like that unless the cops are trying to kill you. .................................

What there is no excuse for is police feeling the need to chase down and beat to death a suspect that they can pick up later usually without any risk to them or the suspect. They had his car. They had his license plate. He wasn't a wanted mass murderer or bank robber.

 

[Lapaz]

You keep a laser focus on the "2nd encounter" because you are using the first encounter as an excuse for what happened at the 2nd encounter. Either that or you believe the sentence for resisting arrest is death. Stop with this 1st encounter bullshirt. Resisting arrest is not justification for murder. I personally don't give a damn if he kicked one of the cops in their groin and busted both of their nuts. Even THAT is not justification for murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse. This was murder. It doesn't need to remain to be seen. Nichols was killed unlawfully and without justification.

Nichols should not be dead. He was murdered by police. He didn't tempt the to kill him. None of his actions, whether resisting or not, was justification for his murder.

Quote me where I make excuses for Nichols or even claimed he was innocent. The only excuses being made are being made by you for the police actions.

Again, the sentence for resisting arrest is NOT death. The difference between you and the rest of us is that we see a human being that was beaten to death whereas you see a thing that is no longer alive. Nichols shouldn't be dead, full stop. Anything other than that is a feeble attempt to place blame on a murder victim for being murdered.

You’re irrational. I’ve never thought of Nichols as anything but a person, but he is also a guilty person. I have said repeatedly that the cops were wrong to beat Nichols in the 2nd encounter. You just don’t like that I don’t laud Nichols. The politically correct thing to do is to ignore Nichols’ actions in the first encounter. You make excuses for Nichols by claiming that he had a right to resist violently in the initial stop. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I also think you don’t read my posts. I have also repeatedly said that Nichols was guilty, but certainly didn’t deserve what he got, especially death, so that isn’t a difference.

I’m repeating myself. There is no point in continuing this debate, unless there is something new to discuss.

 

[Lapaz]

Why do you expect Nichols to react the same way you did in a much scarier and more stressful situation than you where in with 4 cops taking him down as opposed to the one cop in your situation?



We just completely disagree here. You're wrong. In Nichols mind, the cops where trying to kill him. How can you say he was wrong, when you where not there and are not him? He wasn't fooled at all, he was reacting to what was happening. It really does come down to empathy and you proved as much with this statement.

Also, before we start expecting every citizen to act like a model citizen in every interaction with a cop, lest they be killed, why don't we first expect the cops, who we pay and train with public money, to act like model cops?

You would essentially excuse anyone that fights the police upon being arrested. You should try that to see how well that goes for you. It’s an irrational standard. It lends itself to a war with the police. Our default should be to obey, not fear and fight.

 

[Dragon]

You’re irrational. I’ve never thought of Nichols as anything but a person, but he is also a guilty person. I have said repeatedly that the cops were wrong to beat Nichols in the 2nd encounter. You just don’t like that I don’t laud Nichols. The politically correct thing to do is to ignore Nichols’ actions in the first encounter. You make excuses for Nichols by claiming that he had a right to resist violently in the initial stop. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I also think you don’t read my posts. I have also repeatedly said that Nichols was guilty, but certainly didn’t deserve what he got, especially death, so that isn’t a difference.

I’m repeating myself. There is no point in continuing this debate, unless there is something new to discuss.

No he was not a guilty person. The chief of police even said that there were no evidence of the excuse the cops used to pull him ower, drag him out of his car and throw him to the ground. The cops started this by assaulting an innocent person.

 

[Dragon]

You would essentially excuse anyone that fights the police upon being arrested. You should try that to see how well that goes for you. It’s an irrational standard. It lends itself to a war with the police. Our default should be to obey, not fear and fight.

You seem to think that the police are not subject to the law. A cop cant just assault someone if he feels like it.

 

[Saintamaniac]

You blame a murder victim for being murdered but I'm irrational....that's rich.

You just don’t like that I don’t laud Nichols.

Incorrect. I just don't like that you blame Nichols for being murdered by continuing the asinine claim that he is partially to blame for being murdered because he was stopped illegally, removed from his car illegally and beaten to death illegally.

I have said repeatedly that the cops were wrong to beat Nichols in the 2nd encounter.

The cops were wrong to stop Nichols. They were wrong to pull him from his car and they were wrong to beat him to death. You just can't bring yourself to acknowledge what everyone else can see: the police murdered Nichols and it doesn't matter whether he resisted at "the 1st encounter or any other encounter.

You make excuses for Nichols by claiming that he had a right to resist violently in the initial stop.

Once again, quote me where I made excuses for Nichols. I don't know who the hell Nichols was or what kind of person he was. What I do know is that the police had no legitimate reason to stop him but they did. I know that Nichols was beaten to death and it was all captured on camera. He was murderd by the police.

I also think you don’t read my posts.

I read your posts. That's why I respond to them.

I have also repeatedly said that Nichols was guilty, but certainly didn’t deserve what he got, especially death

And you have repeatedly been wrong.

 

[Lapaz]

What there is no excuse for is police feeling the need to chase down and beat to death a suspect that they can pick up later usually without any risk to them or the suspect. They had his car. They had his license plate. He wasn't a wanted mass murderer or bank robber.

I agree that they should’ve let him go, and then arrest him later with the added charge of resisting arrest.

 

[SFIDC3]

No he was not a guilty person. The chief of police even said that there were no evidence of the excuse the cops used to pull him ower, drag him out of his car and throw him to the ground. The cops started this by assaulting an innocent person.

Using facts doesn't work against someone who will quite irrationally support a narrative that somehow there was a "guilty" victim of a police murder.....I really don't understand the POV of someone with this mindset....it defies logic and reason....

 

[CoolBrees]

I agree that they should’ve let him go, and then arrest him later with the added charge of resisting arrest.

Added charge to what?

He didn’t do anything illegal.

And you keep saying he is guilty. No, he is not. Police do not make the determination if someone is guilty or not. Judges and Juries do.

In this instance, the officers were the arrestors, the judge, jury and executioner. He was not afforded a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers. He wasn’t read his rights. He was handcuffed , beaten and murdered for no apparent reason other than fleeing being beaten the first time.

Defending this just makes it harder to have productive conversation about reform. If you can’t watch that and agree those men murdered that poor man, then you either have a bias against alleged law breakers or one for police.

 

[Lapaz]

Added charge to what?

He didn’t do anything illegal.

And you keep saying he is guilty. No, he is not. Police do not make the determination if someone is guilty or not. Judges and Juries do.

In this instance, the officers were the arrestors, the judge, jury and executioner. He was not afforded a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers. He wasn’t read his rights. He was handcuffed , beaten and murdered for no apparent reason other than fleeing being beaten the first time.

Defending this just makes it harder to have productive conversation about reform. If you can’t watch that and agree those men murdered that poor man, then you either have a bias against alleged law breakers or one for police.

Okay, you can play the word game, but you know what I meant. I meant that he would be charged with resisting arrest, along with whatever else he may have been charged with. The reform should be about the 2nd encounter. If you can't understand that, then you also have a bias against the police and biased towards suspects.

 

[Lapaz]

You blame a murder victim for being murdered but I'm irrational....that's rich.

I have not done that in any post. You're wrong. I have never claimed that his actions in the first encounter justify the treatment in the 2nd encounter, which I think is where you're getting this purported blame. I said that if he had allowed himself to be arrested without fighting, then the 2nd encounter wouldn't have occurred. That isn't blaming Nichols for being dead, but it is obviously true. That isn't the same as blaming Nichols for the beating he got.

Incorrect. I just don't like that you blame Nichols for being murdered by continuing the asinine claim that he is partially to blame for being murdered because he was stopped illegally, removed from his car illegally and beaten to death illegally.

The cops were wrong to stop Nichols. They were wrong to pull him from his car and they were wrong to beat him to death. You just can't bring yourself to acknowledge what everyone else can see: the police murdered Nichols and it doesn't matter whether he resisted at "the 1st encounter or any other encounter.

Once again, quote me where I made excuses for Nichols. I don't know who the hell Nichols was or what kind of person he was. What I do know is that the police had no legitimate reason to stop him but they did. I know that Nichols was beaten to death and it was all captured on camera. He was murderd by the police.

Look above for your excusing Nichols for resisting arrest. That does matter in the first encounter. Do you acknowledge that Nichols was at fault in the 1st encounter? If so, then we can agree, and we can also agree that it shouldn't matter for the 2nd encounter.

I read your posts. That's why I respond to them.

You misquote me repeatedly, so either you don't read them or you don't comprehend them.

And you have repeatedly been wrong.

 

[Lapaz]

You seem to think that the police are not subject to the law. A cop cant just assault someone if he feels like it.

No, I don't seem to think that. I've said the cops in the 2nd encounter should be charged for assault. I was responding to Coldseat that said "In Nichols mind, the cops where trying to kill him. How can you say he was wrong, when you where not there and are not him?" I wasn't there, but I saw the video.

That comment suggests that if someone thinks the cops are trying to kill them, even without a sound basis for that thought, then they are excused from fighting the cops. There was no sound reason to think he was in danger of being killed in the first encounter. They were just trying to get him to lay flat so they could cuff him. No one threatened to kill him. No one pulled a gun. In fact, they only threatened non-lethal actions. The thought that they were trying to kill him was not based on sound reasoning, and it' ridiculous to use that as an argument to defend him. That would allow anyone to fight the police during an arrest.

Again, I'm not defending the cops in the 2nd encounter, but I also know Nichols was wrong to act the way he did in the first encounter. If more people acted that way, there would be a lot more killings at the hands of cops. That wouldn't excuse either the cop nor the victim, but it would acknowledge fault on both sides.

 

[coldseat]

You would essentially excuse anyone that fights the police upon being arrested. You should try that to see how well that goes for you. It’s an irrational standard. It lends itself to a war with the police. Our default should be to obey, not fear and fight.

I do not excuse anyone fighting the police. Tyre Nichols did not fight the police. that's an intentional gross mischaracterization on what happened on your part to try and hold on to your inflexible opinion. Tyre Nichols did resist arrest and he did flee from the police in the first encounter. From looking at the video, I think it's obvious and apparent that the reason he did that was out of fear for his life, which is what I've been saying. No where in his interaction with the police did Tyre Nichols throw a punch or make an aggressive move towards the police, that would be fighting the police.

You say one shouldn't fear the police, but you yourself admitted that you feared the police that pulled you out of your car and threatened to kill you.

Just because I had something similar to the first encounter, doesn't mean that I can't evaluate the errors made by Nichols. I didn't say I got beaten, because I didn't. I was roughed up by being thrown against the car, scared to death by the threat to blow my head off, and then being thrown to the ground, but I wasn't beaten. I was smart enough not to physically resist the cops, otherwise I might not have survived the incident. It is a long story, but they had probable cause, even though they were totally wrong. I was totally innocent. That didn't matter. I could've been killed, but the cop that was physically and verbally abusive to me didn't punch nor kick me. The cops at the first encounter with Nichols didn't punch nor kick him either. Had I flailed and resisted like Nichols, I seriously doubt that I would've survived my encounter with that cop. I didn't hear any cop threaten to kill Nichols at the first encounter, like the cop that abused me. My one cop would've turned into multiple cops very quickly, because they were less than a short block away, and if any were like the first cop that stopped me, the group would've killed me.

You may have obeyed him, but you still feared him. Was that because of the media? Did the media make you fear that cop in that instant? How can you expect somebody in a more intense and scarier situation than you where in not to fear the police?