NYPD Harry Houck: "No amount of talking can save you" - "He resisted arrest, that is why he is dead"
He said he personally knows from his friends on Staten Island that Eric Garner was a criminal, for selling loose cigarettes, "because he was drawing all the crackheads into the nieghborhood" to buy cigarettes. -- on CNN this morning.
He mocked Eric Garner saying "don't arrest me because I'm a criminal" and said that "everything was fine until he made an agressive gesture, you can see it on the video" -- the agressive gesture was putting his hands up -- when the host challenged this saying she'd be inclined to do the same thing if she were being harassed, he said "you're not a 300-pound guy".
He also asserted there was a "war on cops in this country", one that "all began with Ferguson and continued with the incident in Cleveland, and now in New York". and stopped short of saying there's a "war on white people", saying that if Garner had been white, "would people still be outraged" and the grand jury had been all black, "would people still be outraged".
He repeated the meme Tom Fuentes said about how Garner had been arrested before and not resisted arrest, so he was dead this time because he supposedly resisted arrest -- as we can supposedly see on video.
When challenged about whether that is resisting arrest, he said:
"The people in that neighborhood wanted him gone because he was distributing cigarettes to crackheads, and he was gonna be arrested no matter what. No amount of talking can save you. We always say you can do the easy way or the hard way. He chose the hard way."
= new reply since forum marked as read
And the extended video shows Brown taking what looks to be dollar bill(s) out of his pocket, putting what was in his hand on the counter next to the cashier, and walking off with the cigarillos in the other hand behind Johnson. No indication that an ID was shown, just money.
Side note - That's the same sort of thing my stepdaughter's ex-boyfriend has done at his local convenience store once he was old enough to buy his Swisher Sweets and they recognized him. Just say "hey, I'm getting two", grab two from the display by the cash register, put the dollar-fifty on the counter, and walk off. Of course, there also have been rumors that store sells to minors...but at least Andy tried to be legal in the store.
Back to the extended video. The clerk takes whatever was on the counter, messes around with the register for about 3 seconds, looks up, then comes out around the register to confront Brown.
And now we come to "the official proof that Brown stole cigarillos and assaulted a clerk". The clerk starts yelling at Brown and puts his hands on him. Brown shoves the clerk, mouths something, turns, and walks out behind Johnson.
Within seconds of the timestamp of this occurrence on the security video, there is an anonymous 911 call to the police saying the store was just robbed. Both the owner and the clerk deny making that call in their subsequent interviews to the press, and they both claim that Brown didn't steal anything. Brown was also identified as a regular customer that they knew by name. Since they didn't make statements at the Grand Jury, their part in this whole situation is pretty much limited to the video and the anonymous 911 call.
BTW, Johnson says in his interview it was the first time in that store with Brown, and he had only been in it a few times previously. So chances are, neither the clerk or owner knew Johnson.
So, figure out what happened at the store from all the evidence available from the incident in the store.
Simplest scenario is this:
1)Johnson and Brown came in for the Swisher Sweets (because Johnson ended up with them during the incident, and nothing else was on Brown's body from the store).
2)(Supposition) Johnson is under-aged, so he's a bit shifty about the situation since he doesn't know the store - (on the extended video).
3) Brown does what he usually does, takes his smokes and puts the money on the counter and walks off - (on the extended video).
4) Clerk puts money in the cash register, closes it (as store owner says there was no robbery), looks up and(supposition)notices Johnson and Brown are together.
5) Clerk comes out from around the counter and says something (on the extended video) like (supposition) he needs to see ID (either from Brown or Johnson) and at this point -
6) (the officially provided photos and video begin here) the clerk puts his hands on Brown
7) Brown says something (on the "official" video) like (supposition) a "WTF, man, you know me" ,and shoves past the clerk as he follows Johnson who is already out the store (on the official video).
Another customer sees what happened, thinks it's a robbery because of big old Mike Brown pushing that little clerk, and calls 911, giving the dispatcher Brown's description (911 transcript).
Even with the "official evidence", all that is provable is that Brown was a bit mouthy and pushy, and yes, did technically assault the clerk - who initially assaulted and thus attempted to illegally detain Brown by putting hands on him to stop him.
Remember, BROWN COMMITTED NO CRIME THAT WAS EVER REPORTED BY THE OWNER OR THE CLERK HE SUPPOSEDLY ASSAULTED.
An Anonymous 911 call is not an official criminal complaint; and no criminal report was ever initiated or filed.
Yeah, the totality of the accumulated evidence proves Brown (and probably Johnson, too) was a thug and a criminal. And uppity to boot.
Wilson was obviously perfectly correct and within the law to escalate a traffic stop or burglary investigation when it came to dealing with such a vicious piece of trash. 
Haele
There probably are.
The only problem being that, as the Garner case proves, the mass of data currently being collected is only harmful when the media machine deems it be made harmful.
Although the "dazzle" method sounds interesting.
Low tech is often best--easiest, certainly.
Dazzle worked a treat on ships at sea--it can work to obscure faces, too. If they can't read your faceprint, they can't ID you.
Looks a bit odd, but, hey, every fault's a fashion.
over less powerful people in order to remove motivation from the equation, unfortunately!
Most video surveillance isn't "government" surveillance, even though that gets all the press. At least not "big government." Traffic cameras are a biggie in the government sphere, but they are easy to avoid if you don't take the highways. In some cities (most of the UK, e.g. and large cities like DC here in USA) there are streetlight cameras that police can dial in on, and all major transit systems have video surveillance as well. But the over-arching presence of surveillance, down to small towns, little villages, that gas station in the middle of nowhere, for example, is business-related--stores, ATMs, restaurants, stuff like that. You can't buy anything without being on Candid Camera. Coming up smartly in popularity, getting bigger and bigger every year as the technology gets cheaper and cheaper, is HOME surveillance, that gives us cute little videos like the cat defending the little child from the vicious dog, or the mean neighbor stealing the Xmas display or the political sign from the front yard.
With face mapping, though, police can take a private video and identify a person from it, assuming their face is in their system and the clarity of the image is reasonably high-def.
This isn't a bad low tech solution, but that ear can be mapped:
The former Home Alone star has the idea but he let his scarf slip, his hat ride up to show his forehead and ears and his glasses need to be bigger, or at least cover his eyebrows:
This is the ultimate--but one would kinda stick out and people would take notice in most environments:
If you are a "known" entity, they can also figure out who you are through other biometric markers, like height, finger length, stride (manner of walking), things like that.
And of course, there are other kinds of surveillance as well--phone, net, etc. Gotta go off line to be SURE no one is looking/listening in to communications in that sphere.
The problem with attempts to evade surveillance by masking yourself (ahem) is that you're just singling yourself out as a person to be watched, even though (especially given) the government is generally too lazy or incompetent to figure out who you are unless they have a reason to go back and look (in which case presumably you were "doing something wrong"
. So you're basically calling attention to yourself. On the other hand, recent leaks have shown that there's petabytes of surveillance data out there on people who are doing nothing wrong, including politicians and elected officials. Who has access to this data now?
people should see EXACTLY what the REAL PROBLEM is --
IDIOTS LIKE THIS!!!
ON EDIT: Thank you for posting it, even if it absolutely infuriated me. 
I am sorry that whenever I post on DU it is to repost something bad that someone said that elicits outrage. I wish I had something positive to talk about.You are a valued member of this community, and very much appreciated.
We have to be careful NOT to be in a mindset where we only see the "not crazy people" - my husband is a wonderful man, and he really brought this home to me.
I am a woman in IT; I have been making my living with my computer skills since I was a teenager, and that puts me at three decades of business experience. I have a youthful appearance, so people who don't know me will sometimes "assume" I am not as knowledgeable as I am.
You might be surprised about this but we do have some misogynists in this field.
My husband is NOT a misogynist. He knows I am "smarter than he is" (his words), and frankly is just wonderful. It is *extremely* difficult for him to wrap his head around the fact that Not Everyone Is Like Him because it just sounds STUPID to him. Limit or underpay someone based on their sex? It makes no sense to him.
Except he has watched it happen to me. I have reported conversations word-for-word ("step back and let someone else have an opportunity to display leadership" - "you are very arrogant" - "I like getting senior people at a bargain price" - etc.), and he has just had his jaw on the floor because he can't believe any intelligent boss would actually say this stuff.
His reality is different than mine; he also knows it isn't me because he knows the professional relationships I have and the standards to which I hold myself, so when I finally figured out "the code" being used against me, it helped to identify the "real problem."
We *have* to remember that this stuff is out there so we can fix it. You are helping us do that.
Thank you for it!
And they mostly seem to be women. But they say the same thing about equal treatment.
Although they are mostly radical feminist anarchist chicks who wear scary shiny glasses, so maybe that's why the cops look at me funny at work. 
The downside to that is I can't get anyone to help me with computer stuff anymore. 
Or make me a sammich. (just kidding)
If it's any comfort, there seem to be multiple biases at work. For instance, people who look older, or younger, or not-pretty, their opinions tend to be devalued compared to the "go-getters" and "natural politicians" who are always attractive. This seems to be hard-wired in people.
So when a cops says, "hands up!" are we supposed to put our hands up or leave them down. Since now it seems either action will get you a lead lunch and a quick trip to the morgue. 
Fuck the Police.
Booo !!!! Harry. Booo ! you wimpy sick little baby .
"He chose the hard way."
Fuck that guy.
Twice.
simply asking the Gestapo agent, err, cop in question "what's the problem." 
A hard rain's gonna fall on these fuckers one day.
Maybe they really want mass conflict so their buddies can make money off of selling police armor, tanks, training and other equipment.
King is the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security :tinfoil:
Exactly!
