Man from New Yorker article about Rikers commits suicide

[Anonymous]

Yeah, there are so many things that went wring here (boy arrested and put away on flimsy evidence, underfunded courts so no timely trial, overwhelmed public defenders, abusive guards, solitary, no support once he got out) but in this case I don't think private prisons is one of them.

[Anonymous]

Hadn't read his story, but went back and read everything. The prolonged detention is absolutely awful, unconstitutional.

The video - he started both of those confrontations, certainly the one with other inmates. You can clearly say something to the guard too, although I wonder what it was to warrant a physical response like that.

He was at a very delicate age where mental health issues often emerge. What he went through clearly was extremely harmful to him, and was not right (the prolonged detention), but I'm apt to think it exacerbated issues instead of caused them.

Either way, I'm very sorry for his family and what a sad story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hadn't read his story, but went back and read everything. The prolonged detention is absolutely awful, unconstitutional.

The video - he started both of those confrontations, certainly the one with other inmates. You can clearly say something to the guard too, although I wonder what it was to warrant a physical response like that.

He was at a very delicate age where mental health issues often emerge. What he went through clearly was extremely harmful to him, and was not right (the prolonged detention), but I'm apt to think it exacerbated issues instead of caused them.

Either way, I'm very sorry for his family and what a sad story.

I don't know - that much time at rikers at that age would have made me crazy. You are right that late teens/early twenties is when mental health problems often emerge and anything is possible. But it definitely seems more likely that he was mentally destroyed by what happened (and that could have happened early on - then causing him to instigate some altercations later on). It also didn't seem like he had access to great mental health care once he got out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hadn't read his story, but went back and read everything. The prolonged detention is absolutely awful, unconstitutional.

The video - he started both of those confrontations, certainly the one with other inmates. You can clearly say something to the guard too, although I wonder what it was to warrant a physical response like that.

He was at a very delicate age where mental health issues often emerge. What he went through clearly was extremely harmful to him, and was not right (the prolonged detention), but I'm apt to think it exacerbated issues instead of caused them.

Either way, I'm very sorry for his family and what a sad story.

I don't know - that much time at rikers at that age would have made me crazy. You are right that late teens/early twenties is when mental health problems often emerge and anything is possible. But it definitely seems more likely that he was mentally destroyed by what happened (and that could have happened early on - then causing him to instigate some altercations later on). It also didn't seem like he had access to great mental health care once he got out.

+1
It's been well documented that solitary confinement is torture. We are social animals. It greatly harms the human mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not been able to forget about this story after I read it in the New Yorker. I hope his family finds peace and the system is reformed. This is just so sad.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015

I only became aware of Kalief Browder's tragic history today. I can find no words to describe what I feel about what happened to Mr. Browder but it is a sick feeling. I so wish that he could have somehow managed to get the abuse into a manageable place and gone on to live a happy and successful life.

The last paragraph in that article hit a chord with me....powerful statement..."In the case of Kalief Browder, he said, “When you go over the three years that he spent [in jail] and all the horrific details he endured, it’s unbelievable that this could happen to a teen-ager in New York City. He didn’t get tortured in some prison camp in another country. It was right here!”

[Anonymous]

It's a horrifying story and a terrible injustice.

[Anonymous]

This is a really sad, gut wrenching story. But I read the original New Yorker story from 2014 which provided more balanced detail.

He'd already had several run-ins with police and was on probation when he was accused of the robbery with a friend. Because the friend was not on probation, he was freed and allowed to await trial from home. Browder's family was unable to make the $3,000 bail that was set for him as a probation violator. (8 mos prior he and friends had stolen and crashed a car. He pled guilty to larceny and other charges.)

By the time a grand jury indicted him for the crimes, he couldn't go home. Bail was not an option. There seems to be issues with his case dragging out. But he admittens to being thrown into solitary confinement due to fighting. Seems he was also following his brothers advice to get thrown into solitary anytime he felt unsafe in his cell.

It's a tragic story but I don't think it was an innocent choir boy honor student who was targeted and picked on. He was treated like they treated all prisoners. The media should stop trying to paint a biased story. It doesn't make it any less tragic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a really sad, gut wrenching story. But I read the original New Yorker story from 2014 which provided more balanced detail.

He'd already had several run-ins with police and was on probation when he was accused of the robbery with a friend. Because the friend was not on probation, he was freed and allowed to await trial from home. Browder's family was unable to make the $3,000 bail that was set for him as a probation violator. (8 mos prior he and friends had stolen and crashed a car. He pled guilty to larceny and other charges.)

By the time a grand jury indicted him for the crimes, he couldn't go home. Bail was not an option. There seems to be issues with his case dragging out. But he admittens to being thrown into solitary confinement due to fighting. Seems he was also following his brothers advice to get thrown into solitary anytime he felt unsafe in his cell.

It's a tragic story but I don't think it was an innocent choir boy honor student who was targeted and picked on. He was treated like they treated all prisoners. The media should stop trying to paint a biased story. It doesn't make it any less tragic.

Your reading of that article is highly selective. "There seems to be issues with his case dragging out??""

He has a right to a speedy trial. There was no evidence to work through. His constitutional rights were violated, and those rights apply whether you think he was a "choir boy" or not. Whether he was alone or whether it happened to a thousand like him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a really sad, gut wrenching story. But I read the original New Yorker story from 2014 which provided more balanced detail.

He'd already had several run-ins with police and was on probation when he was accused of the robbery with a friend. Because the friend was not on probation, he was freed and allowed to await trial from home. Browder's family was unable to make the $3,000 bail that was set for him as a probation violator. (8 mos prior he and friends had stolen and crashed a car. He pled guilty to larceny and other charges.)

By the time a grand jury indicted him for the crimes, he couldn't go home. Bail was not an option. There seems to be issues with his case dragging out. But he admittens to being thrown into solitary confinement due to fighting. Seems he was also following his brothers advice to get thrown into solitary anytime he felt unsafe in his cell.

It's a tragic story but I don't think it was an innocent choir boy honor student who was targeted and picked on. He was treated like they treated all prisoners. The media should stop trying to paint a biased story. It doesn't make it any less tragic.

Your reading of that article is highly selective. "There seems to be issues with his case dragging out??""

He has a right to a speedy trial. There was no evidence to work through. His constitutional rights were violated, and those rights apply whether you think he was a "choir boy" or not. Whether he was alone or whether it happened to a thousand like him.

And he could have pushed for a speedy trial because the state also has the right it drag its feet as it builds its case. It's up tI the defendant to say Nope! Speed this up, (remember: Oftentimes they're out on bail and don't care about speed.) let's also remember that KaliEd was initially denied bail because his arrest was a probation violation. The other accused was released without bail. Then when he was allowed bail. It was only set at $3,000 but the family could not or refused to come up with $300. After so many run ins with the law, the mother could've very well decided she was fed up and he needed to learn a lesson.

My problem is the selective retelling of this story. This was no saint who was unfairly railroaded, put into a dangerous prison with adult men (he was with teens), beaten for no reason (we saw him throw the 1st punch AND guards actively protect him, even pushing him into a safe room), thrown into solitary confinement for no reason (by his own admission he was fighting), and just screwed over because police decided to pick on him for no reason. It's possible he and a friend DID rob that boy. If he stole and crashed a vehicle just 8 months prior and whatever other crimes he engaged in, I wouldn't put a robbery past him.

I feel badly for his loss, but there's no proof 1. He was treated any worse than any other prisoner 2. The state of NY was the cause of his demise. He was tdoubled before Rikers and headed in the wrong direction.

[Anonymous]

There's a reason a grand jury chose to indict him. This was not just the word of a lying cop and sketchy witness. The grand jury was presented with evidence that none of us is privy to.

Get the facts or at least reread the first New Yorker article carefully instead of simply parroting spoon fed sound bites of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a really sad, gut wrenching story. But I read the original New Yorker story from 2014 which provided more balanced detail.

He'd already had several run-ins with police and was on probation when he was accused of the robbery with a friend. Because the friend was not on probation, he was freed and allowed to await trial from home. Browder's family was unable to make the $3,000 bail that was set for him as a probation violator. (8 mos prior he and friends had stolen and crashed a car. He pled guilty to larceny and other charges.)

By the time a grand jury indicted him for the crimes, he couldn't go home. Bail was not an option. There seems to be issues with his case dragging out. But he admittens to being thrown into solitary confinement due to fighting. Seems he was also following his brothers advice to get thrown into solitary anytime he felt unsafe in his cell.

It's a tragic story but I don't think it was an innocent choir boy honor student who was targeted and picked on. He was treated like they treated all prisoners. The media should stop trying to paint a biased story. It doesn't make it any less tragic.

Your reading of that article is highly selective. "There seems to be issues with his case dragging out??""

He has a right to a speedy trial. There was no evidence to work through. His constitutional rights were violated, and those rights apply whether you think he was a "choir boy" or not. Whether he was alone or whether it happened to a thousand like him.

And he could have pushed for a speedy trial because the state also has the right it drag its feet as it builds its case. It's up tI the defendant to say Nope! Speed this up, (remember: Oftentimes they're out on bail and don't care about speed.) let's also remember that KaliEd was initially denied bail because his arrest was a probation violation. The other accused was released without bail. Then when he was allowed bail. It was only set at $3,000 but the family could not or refused to come up with $300. After so many run ins with the law, the mother could've very well decided she was fed up and he needed to learn a lesson.

My problem is the selective retelling of this story. This was no saint who was unfairly railroaded, put into a dangerous prison with adult men (he was with teens), beaten for no reason (we saw him throw the 1st punch AND guards actively protect him, even pushing him into a safe room), thrown into solitary confinement for no reason (by his own admission he was fighting), and just screwed over because police decided to pick on him for no reason. It's possible he and a friend DID rob that boy. If he stole and crashed a vehicle just 8 months prior and whatever other crimes he engaged in, I wouldn't put a robbery past him.

I feel badly for his loss, but there's no proof 1. He was treated any worse than any other prisoner 2. The state of NY was the cause of his demise. He was tdoubled before Rikers and headed in the wrong direction.

Your argument is that some people are less deserving of their constitutional rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a really sad, gut wrenching story. But I read the original New Yorker story from 2014 which provided more balanced detail.

He'd already had several run-ins with police and was on probation when he was accused of the robbery with a friend. Because the friend was not on probation, he was freed and allowed to await trial from home. Browder's family was unable to make the $3,000 bail that was set for him as a probation violator. (8 mos prior he and friends had stolen and crashed a car. He pled guilty to larceny and other charges.)

By the time a grand jury indicted him for the crimes, he couldn't go home. Bail was not an option. There seems to be issues with his case dragging out. But he admittens to being thrown into solitary confinement due to fighting. Seems he was also following his brothers advice to get thrown into solitary anytime he felt unsafe in his cell.

It's a tragic story but I don't think it was an innocent choir boy honor student who was targeted and picked on. He was treated like they treated all prisoners. The media should stop trying to paint a biased story. It doesn't make it any less tragic.

Your reading of that article is highly selective. "There seems to be issues with his case dragging out??""

He has a right to a speedy trial. There was no evidence to work through. His constitutional rights were violated, and those rights apply whether you think he was a "choir boy" or not. Whether he was alone or whether it happened to a thousand like him.

And he could have pushed for a speedy trial because the state also has the right it drag its feet as it builds its case. It's up tI the defendant to say Nope! Speed this up, (remember: Oftentimes they're out on bail and don't care about speed.) let's also remember that KaliEd was initially denied bail because his arrest was a probation violation. The other accused was released without bail. Then when he was allowed bail. It was only set at $3,000 but the family could not or refused to come up with $300. After so many run ins with the law, the mother could've very well decided she was fed up and he needed to learn a lesson.

My problem is the selective retelling of this story. This was no saint who was unfairly railroaded, put into a dangerous prison with adult men (he was with teens), beaten for no reason (we saw him throw the 1st punch AND guards actively protect him, even pushing him into a safe room), thrown into solitary confinement for no reason (by his own admission he was fighting), and just screwed over because police decided to pick on him for no reason. It's possible he and a friend DID rob that boy. If he stole and crashed a vehicle just 8 months prior and whatever other crimes he engaged in, I wouldn't put a robbery past him.

I feel badly for his loss, but there's no proof 1. He was treated any worse than any other prisoner 2. The state of NY was the cause of his demise. He was tdoubled before Rikers and headed in the wrong direction.

Your argument is that some people are less deserving of their constitutional rights.

My argument is that some rights must be demanded. If he felt the state was dragging, he could've had his attorney go to court and press for a speedy trial. They don't always happen immediately.

My 2nd argument is that people need to look at the REAL story instead of rewriting a tale filled with lies. This is not innocent angel, maliciously plucked off his cloud and thrown into a prison system by meanies out to beat, deny bail and solitarily confine a poor black kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a really sad, gut wrenching story. But I read the original New Yorker story from 2014 which provided more balanced detail.

He'd already had several run-ins with police and was on probation when he was accused of the robbery with a friend. Because the friend was not on probation, he was freed and allowed to await trial from home. Browder's family was unable to make the $3,000 bail that was set for him as a probation violator. (8 mos prior he and friends had stolen and crashed a car. He pled guilty to larceny and other charges.)

By the time a grand jury indicted him for the crimes, he couldn't go home. Bail was not an option. There seems to be issues with his case dragging out. But he admittens to being thrown into solitary confinement due to fighting. Seems he was also following his brothers advice to get thrown into solitary anytime he felt unsafe in his cell.

It's a tragic story but I don't think it was an innocent choir boy honor student who was targeted and picked on. He was treated like they treated all prisoners. The media should stop trying to paint a biased story. It doesn't make it any less tragic.

Your reading of that article is highly selective. "There seems to be issues with his case dragging out??""

He has a right to a speedy trial. There was no evidence to work through. His constitutional rights were violated, and those rights apply whether you think he was a "choir boy" or not. Whether he was alone or whether it happened to a thousand like him.

And he could have pushed for a speedy trial because the state also has the right it drag its feet as it builds its case. It's up tI the defendant to say Nope! Speed this up, (remember: Oftentimes they're out on bail and don't care about speed.) let's also remember that KaliEd was initially denied bail because his arrest was a probation violation. The other accused was released without bail. Then when he was allowed bail. It was only set at $3,000 but the family could not or refused to come up with $300. After so many run ins with the law, the mother could've very well decided she was fed up and he needed to learn a lesson.

My problem is the selective retelling of this story. This was no saint who was unfairly railroaded, put into a dangerous prison with adult men (he was with teens), beaten for no reason (we saw him throw the 1st punch AND guards actively protect him, even pushing him into a safe room), thrown into solitary confinement for no reason (by his own admission he was fighting), and just screwed over because police decided to pick on him for no reason. It's possible he and a friend DID rob that boy. If he stole and crashed a vehicle just 8 months prior and whatever other crimes he engaged in, I wouldn't put a robbery past him.

I feel badly for his loss, but there's no proof 1. He was treated any worse than any other prisoner 2. The state of NY was the cause of his demise. He was tdoubled before Rikers and headed in the wrong direction.

Your argument is that some people are less deserving of their constitutional rights.

My argument is that some rights must be demanded. If he felt the state was dragging, he could've had his attorney go to court and press for a speedy trial. They don't always happen immediately.

My 2nd argument is that people need to look at the REAL story instead of rewriting a tale filled with lies. This is not innocent angel, maliciously plucked off his cloud and thrown into a prison system by meanies out to beat, deny bail and solitarily confine a poor black kid.

You didn't read well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a really sad, gut wrenching story. But I read the original New Yorker story from 2014 which provided more balanced detail.

He'd already had several run-ins with police and was on probation when he was accused of the robbery with a friend. Because the friend was not on probation, he was freed and allowed to await trial from home. Browder's family was unable to make the $3,000 bail that was set for him as a probation violator. (8 mos prior he and friends had stolen and crashed a car. He pled guilty to larceny and other charges.)

By the time a grand jury indicted him for the crimes, he couldn't go home. Bail was not an option. There seems to be issues with his case dragging out. But he admittens to being thrown into solitary confinement due to fighting. Seems he was also following his brothers advice to get thrown into solitary anytime he felt unsafe in his cell.

It's a tragic story but I don't think it was an innocent choir boy honor student who was targeted and picked on. He was treated like they treated all prisoners. The media should stop trying to paint a biased story. It doesn't make it any less tragic.

Your reading of that article is highly selective. "There seems to be issues with his case dragging out??""

He has a right to a speedy trial. There was no evidence to work through. His constitutional rights were violated, and those rights apply whether you think he was a "choir boy" or not. Whether he was alone or whether it happened to a thousand like him.

And he could have pushed for a speedy trial because the state also has the right it drag its feet as it builds its case. It's up tI the defendant to say Nope! Speed this up, (remember: Oftentimes they're out on bail and don't care about speed.) let's also remember that KaliEd was initially denied bail because his arrest was a probation violation. The other accused was released without bail. Then when he was allowed bail. It was only set at $3,000 but the family could not or refused to come up with $300. After so many run ins with the law, the mother could've very well decided she was fed up and he needed to learn a lesson.

My problem is the selective retelling of this story. This was no saint who was unfairly railroaded, put into a dangerous prison with adult men (he was with teens), beaten for no reason (we saw him throw the 1st punch AND guards actively protect him, even pushing him into a safe room), thrown into solitary confinement for no reason (by his own admission he was fighting), and just screwed over because police decided to pick on him for no reason. It's possible he and a friend DID rob that boy. If he stole and crashed a vehicle just 8 months prior and whatever other crimes he engaged in, I wouldn't put a robbery past him.

I feel badly for his loss, but there's no proof 1. He was treated any worse than any other prisoner 2. The state of NY was the cause of his demise. He was tdoubled before Rikers and headed in the wrong direction.

Your argument is that some people are less deserving of their constitutional rights.

My argument is that some rights must be demanded. If he felt the state was dragging, he could've had his attorney go to court and press for a speedy trial. They don't always happen immediately.

My 2nd argument is that people need to look at the REAL story instead of rewriting a tale filled with lies. This is not innocent angel, maliciously plucked off his cloud and thrown into a prison system by meanies out to beat, deny bail and solitarily confine a poor black kid.

You didn't read well.

Man, just when I think you all couldn't any worse with your mindsets regarding a certain population of people, you lower yourselves even more. Now you have to be a choir boy to get justice? He was in put in jail over the supposed theft of a backpack. And for that he was in jail for years. This was a child. Why do we continue to put black boys in a different category than other children? How do you expect a child to act in jail? Admittedly he was fighting, but do you know any children who have spent anytime in solitary confinement for any extended length of time? Do you know what that does to them?

Then you say she should have demanded his rights. He didn't know his rights. Most people don't know their legal rights. That's why you get an attorney. So many people failed this young mail and for you to point out that he wasn't a "choir boy" is really sad to me. Now you have to be a choir boy for people to do right by you within the justice system. That that's what you took from this story. Oh, and the "I wouldn't put a robbery past him". Nice.

And what are the lies that you are referring to? I researched this story and most accounts have the same information.