The Homicide No One Committed: Eric Garner's Death At The Hands Of An NYPD Officer No-Billed By Grand Jury
from the inequitable-treatment-for-all! dept
Another citizen dies at the hand of a police officer and another grand-jury-in-name-only can't be bothered to return an indictment. I won't rehash the stats, but the grand jury process exists for one purpose: returning indictments. And now a system that almost always acts as the prosecutor's rubber stamp has failed to do so. Of course, in both cases, the accused were law enforcement officers and that changes everything.
There are some similarities between the Eric Garner case and the Michael Brown case, and they are significant. In both cases, the men were large, black and unarmed. In both cases, a minor crime was allegedly involved -- petty theft in Brown's case and (very allegedly -- this narrative appeared well after the initial reports) the sale of untaxed single cigarettes ("loosies") in Garner's.
The cases diverge, as well. Brown was shot. Garner was choked. In Brown's case, there were multiple eyewitnesses, but they offered conflicting and shifting accounts of what happened. In Garner's case, there were multiple unblinking witnesses -- cellphone cameras -- that captured the entire incident.
In both cases, the grand juries spent weeks examining the evidence. Cases involving those outside of the law enforcement community are examined in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. The grand jury doesn't need a preponderance of evidence to return an indictment in 99.9% of its cases. All it needs is a prosecutor to tell it that probable cause exists and what charges it should bring. A minimum of evidence is provided for its consideration and, in almost every case, the grand jury applies the rubber stamp and the wheels of the "justice" system continue to roll.
Officer Pantaleo faced a greater challenge than Officer Wilson, though. There was videotaped evidence of his every move during the incident. At multiple points, his testimony directly contradicted what the recordings showed.
He acknowledged that he heard Mr. Garner saying, “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe,” and insisted that he tried to disengage as quickly as he could…Watch the video for yourself and see if Pantaleo's statements match his actions.
Pantaleo may have released the chokehold, but he didn't "disengage." Instead, he moved toward the top of Garner's body and held his face down on the pavement. These two moves, one forbidden and one possibly unnecessary, were all that was needed to kill Eric Garner.
I don't use the word "kill" lightly. That's quoting the findings of the medical examiner. "Compression of the neck and chest." "Homicide." That's from the official autopsy. Garner was killed by Officer Pantaleo.
Pantaleo defended his chokehold further by stating that Garner's audible complaints that he couldn't breathe were evidence that he could actually breathe. Fair enough, I suppose, but what Garner was saying was that he was having great difficulty breathing, using what little oxygen he had available to inform the officer of this fact. Just because he didn't phrase it more accurately doesn't change the facts. Garner had trouble breathing, thanks to Pantaleo's actions, right up until he couldn't breathe anymore.
According to his lawyer, Pantaleo justified his chokehold further -- first by stating his fear for his and the other officers' safety and second, by claiming he detached himself as quickly as he could and cleared the path for paramedics to provide assistance. Again, the video contradicts his testimony.
“That’s why he attempted to get off as quick as he could,” Mr. London said. “He thought that once E.M.T. arrived, everything would be O.K.”
The recordings show Pantaleo restraining Garner well past the point of any resistance before heading to the periphery and waving to the cameras. There's a long wait between Pantaleo's disengagement and the paramedics' arrival, during which time a variety of cops appear to believe (despite the physical evidence they're manhandling) that Eric Garner is simply unconscious -- and attempt to undo his death by shouting at him and rolling his lifeless body back and forth
This death is linked to Ferguson mostly in terms of chronology. Garner's death at the hands of a police officer bears more resemblance to the extended restraint and excessive force that brought about the deaths of Kelly Thomas and David Silva. The autopsies contain certain similarities -- like the listing of preexisting health conditions that may have contributed to their deaths. Of course, it's very likely that all three men would still be alive if not for their "interactions" with law enforcement, but medical examiners aren't really interested in pointing this out.
But Garner's was different in this respect: it was determined to be a homicide. But the grand jury viewed all the evidence provided to them by prosecutors uninterested in prosecuting and somehow managed to avoid bringing any charges at all. As Scott Greenfield states in his excellent writeup on the subject, this presents a bit of a problem. Unlike Missouri, where charges can still be pursued without a grand jury indictment, in New York it's a grand jury or nothing.
The District Attorney of Richmond County, New York, has, by the intentional sabotage of his own grand jury presentment, created the legal conundrum of a homicide without a perpetrator. It cannot be, yet it is, because he chose to make it so.Pantaleo now resides in this impossible state. Possibly not for long, as the federal government is launching a civil rights inquiry, but for the time being, he is the recipient of one of the justice system's many "miracles." While it's true that a medical examiner's declaration of "homicide" doesn't actually denote a criminal act has taken place, it does signify that the death was neither accidental nor natural. There was a perpetrator involved and in a normal grand jury setting, this would easily have resulted in an indictment. The jury trial following the indictment would have sorted out the particulars of the death, and perhaps Pantaleo would have walked free nonetheless, but because the grand jury process resulted in "no true bill," Garner's death remains in limbo -- a homicide with no perpetrator to hold accountable or to clear of culpability.
The NYPD is readying its body cam pilot program, but that seemingly offers little in the way of reassurance in light of this outcome. We have just seen an officer who choked a man to death walk away a free man, despite three separate recordings of the incident. What good are cameras if the system continues to grant abusive officers this much leeway? What difference does damning footage make when grand juries believe cops' statements about "fear for their safety" more than their own eyes? These questions can't be answered, at least not with any degree of certainty. And they're uncomfortable questions, both for those who fear that excessive force and misconduct will remain a constant no matter what corrective measures are put in place, as well as for those who generally come down on the side of law enforcement. For those wishing to hold police accountable, each incident caught is more evidence of systemic problems. For those siding with the police, it's just one more indefensible position for them to defend.
One thing is certain, this case would never have received as much attention if cameras hadn't been present. We may not like the outcome, but the process that brought it this far was pushed along by the existence of multiple recordings.
I'm not of the belief that this wholly negates the benefits of body cameras. What it does serious damage to is the notion that they can be tools of greater accountability. The system skews heavily in favor of officers facing charges and hours of footage detailing abuse and misconduct won't change that, at least not on its own. But the gathering of evidence is important, nonetheless. So is the deterrent effect, in which the knowledge of being filmed alters behavior -- both for police officers and the people they interact with.
But using this outcome to declare police body cameras useless accomplishes nothing. We've already seen what happens without them. The alternative is to allow things to proceed as they have so far, and no one's happy with the status quo. The court of public opinion can't return indictments, but it can provoke needed changes within the system -- and that's a lot easier to do when there's footage backing up the claims. It won't be an overnight process, but it can be done.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eric garner, grand juries, grand jury, homicide, nypd
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Probably going to jail beats probably going to the morgue after all.
If the system was capable and willing to deal with murderous cops, then people at least would have some reassurance that a cop would stop before it reached that point, but with case after case where a cop kills someone and nothing happens to them due to it, if a cop feels like offing someone for contempt of cop or just to satisfy a sick desire to assert their authority, then uh, what exactly is stopping them again?
There was multiple videos of this cop killing the victim, videos which directly contradicted the statements made by the cop as to what happened, and yet even then the system refused to hold the cop accountable.
When the system fails, and the public knows that if they want to get out alive they are going to have to take the matter into their own hands... well, when it reaches that point, then those cowardly thugs with badges will have something to fear, and they'll have no-one to blame but themselves and the system that blindly defended their actions.
*To which the obvious response is 'If you wanted a safe job you picked the wrong profession you coward. It's your job to take risks and put yourself between the public and dangerous situations, if you can't handle that, quit, and let someone with more courage take over for you.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
Endless propaganda from the police and media have convinced most everybody that the police are in constant danger. Police training now reflects that same belief - making officer safety the first priority in all situations.
But nationwide statistics complied by the FBI show that a mere 27 police officers were killed by criminal action in 2013. Twenty-seven!
In the same year police killed at least 400 to 500 citizens, possibly many many more since local agencies do what they can to obscure and re-classify police killings.
Fortunately the narrative is starting to come unraveled. People are asking why police are killing at a rate 20 or 30 or more times the rate they are being killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
To those kinds of people, any police fatalities are 'too much', so as long as any cops are injured or killed on the job, to them it will still be all the justification they believe is needed to give the police a blank check on their behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
Not for long, I don't think. These cops are well on their way to provoking a race war. Cops are going to get shot on sight in self defense by otherwise innocent people trying to protect themselves from, look at the record, homicidal cops, and the judicial system backs them up.
How long is USA's racism epidemic going to go on? You'd all better start dealing with it, soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
We've been dealing with it for the last 50 or so years. This isn't the sort of thing that gets fixed quickly. Rather it's the sort of thing that changes over generations once you get the appropriate social pressures going.
Part of is it anyways, the rest is mostly a function of economic and education issues, something even harder to fix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
And in one generation, the comfort lie turns into the truth because nobody really knew anything else.
That's how civilization works. Without input to the contrary, people's belief systems will favor bashing every other's tribes' living daylights out.
Either you are willing to fix it, and then you need to get the fix in right away (even if it takes lots of time to take a good hold), or not.
Because that's the only way in which it works. If you expect the fix to emerge as a result of people becoming more and more civilized without outward influence, you are bound to get disappointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
They are about as prevalent as Nazis in the U.S. and about as influentual: their main contributions are in clothing, music, and hate (including hate crimes with a non-zero but still rather negligible rate of lethality). Politically they are irrelevant, managing parlamentary representation every few decades at most.
Contrast this with France where the Front National manages to win majorities in local elections, or in Austria where the right-wing nationalists managed majorities and/or coalitions in several states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
It's very frustrating that crap like this can take so damned long to get past. Star Trek did it in the '60s! What's our problem?!? :-|
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
It does not feel like the U.S. has made any progress since Eisenhower sent the Army to desegregate the Southern schools. Given the environment in which Eisenhower grew up, I rather doubt that he'd have been comfortable with, say, his sister marrying a negro (which would likely have been the polite expression at his time). Racism and chauvinism are powerful forces wired into our tribal histories. But at some point you have to take a choice and make a stand, and that means recognizing that humanity cannot be reserved based on the color of people's skin.
And at the current point of time, America does not make the impression it is trying hard enough. Everybody is getting sick of political correctness and nobody wants to change the status quo where it would actually make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
None of those Africans asked to be brought here and enslaved. White crackers' resentment of them still being here is wholly misplaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New York homicide [was Re: ]
Mr Cushing linked to Mr Greenfield's writeup. I believe that Mr Greenfield is a New York attorney. Here's an excerpt from his post:
(Hyperlinks omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
The medical examiner reached a firm and definite conclusion that Garner was killed by the volitional actions of another. He was using a definition at least similar to this one?
Further, the medical examiner reached a firm and definite conclusion that it wasn't an accident, didn't he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
But even if we assume everything you said is accurate (which I don't concede), that is not necessarily the same thing as a "homicide" as defined under N.Y. PEN. LAW § 125.00.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
the classification of Homicide for the purposes of death certification is a “neutral” term and neither indicates nor implies criminal intent, which remains a determination within the province of legal processes."
That must have been just an oversight, though, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
No, I believe you're using a different source. That is, if there's an oversight, it's on the part of CDC Atlanta.
However, I'm willing to accept that New York law reserves to the grand jury the “exclusive province of drawing inferences from facts which [do] not require the assistance of an expert.”
Although I'd emphasize that Mr Greenfield may or may not accept that contention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
"Homicide occurs when death results from a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide (more below). It is to be emphasized that the classification of Homicide for the purposes of death certification is a “neutral” term and neither indicates nor implies criminal intent, which remains a determination within the province of legal processes."
Judging from comments on his blog, Mr. Greenfield appears to be a bully more interested in name calling that substantively engaging anyone who questions him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
By the definition you yourself quoted, a homicide is a human death that occurs by the action or inaction of another person. The determination of the coroner, a highly trained and educated and (let's assume) very experienced person, is that a homicide occurred. In a court of law that qualifies as expert testimony. Expert testimony is (usually) also accepted as fact.
We can then agree that a fact of the case is that a homicide occurred, can't we? Therefore, what the grand jury has done then is either:
1) completely ignored this particular fact of the case, or;
2) accepted that a homicide did occur, but that Orc. Pantaleo could not possibly have been the responsible party ... but then who the hell else could it have been?
For the purposes of a grand jury it doesn't matter if it was criminal homicide; that's what an actual trial and jury is supposed to determine.
Fact: a homicide occurred (I understand that this could be argued by opposing "expert testimony", but for the time being that's the only conclusion, and the only conclusion presented to the grand jury)
Fact: Ofc. Pantaleo was very much present when it happened.
It defies logic to try to argue that Pantaleo should not be indicted and face a jury to determine if his actions were criminal and/or negligent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Huh? You lost me when you emphasized it “doesn't matter”.
My understanding of Mr Greenfield's argument was that New York Penal Law definition of homicide was broader than the medical examiner's definition.
But now you seem to arguing something new—when you say it “doesn't matter.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Don't you get it? If the grand jury in this case was operating correctly its sole responsibility was to determine if there was enough plausible potential evidence to proceed with a criminal trial, determined (in this case) by a) was there a homicide? (yes, according to expert testimony); and b) was Ofc. Panteleo there/involved? (yes, according to multiple witnesses and video recording).
They just have to figure out if a homicide occurred, not whether it was criminal. That's up to the jury in the criminal proceeding to determine.
I don't know how to make it any more clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
You misunderstand. I'm not implying that a grand jury proceeding is not an actual criminal proceeding, I'm flat out saying that a grand jury proceeding is not a criminal proceeding.
"A grand jury is a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct..." Source
A grand jury is "[a] panel of citizens that is convened by a court to decide whether it is appropriate for the government to indict (proceed with a prosecution against) someone suspected of a crime." Source
"A grand jury's purpose is to investigate alleged crimes, examine evidence, and issue indictments if they believe that there is enough evidence for a trial to proceed. They are an impartial panel of citizens who must determine whether reasonable cause or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed exists. The grand jury acts as a check on the prosecutorial power of the state." Source
So, no, a grand jury is not an "actual criminal proceeding." It is the precursor for and determinant of whether an actual criminal proceeding should occur.
Jeez, are you really this dense? FFS, you could have just Googled the definition of a grand jury yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
You didn't answer my followup question, so I'll repeat it: What kind of proceeding is the grand jury process then? If it is not “an actual criminal proceeding”?
You do agree that the grand jury process is a legal proceeding, yes? Do you have some more specific adjectives to describe various legal proceedings? Such as, civil, criminal... what else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Fair enough. I'll stipulate that a grand jury is part of the criminal process. Ok?
Your turn. Admit that
is wholly incorrect as I and others have demonstrated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
No, not fair enough.
Please admit that, in New York, the state grand jury proceedings are governed by, among other provisions of state law, the chapter known as the criminal procedure law (CPL).
Beyond that, though, if you want to persist in distinguishing “actual criminal proceedings” from some other kind of proceedings under NY CPL, then I'd like you to please clarify that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Wow! That's quite the informative and supportive link you provided there (see? it helps when you actually follow links people provide), the entirety of which reads:
Haven't you ever learned to do research?
Anyway, if what you're trying to say is that just because a grand jury is governed under CPL it therefore is itself a criminal proceeding, you're wrong. Funny how they don't define it as such in their own definitions of criminal courts (and if you're gonna have a criminal proceeding it only stands to reason it would have to occur in a criminal court):
A grand jury is not a criminal proceeding, no more than Standards of Proof (also mentioned in and governed under the CPL) or Securing Defendants (also mentioned in and governed under the CPL) or Forfeiture of Bail (also mentioned in and governed under the CPL). The grand jury is a step along the way to a criminal proceeding, but that does not make it itself a criminal proceeding.
Perhaps that's why NY State neatly describes a grand jury as a Preliminary Proceeding.
Beyond that, though, if you want to persist in distinguishing “actual criminal proceedings” from some other kind of proceedings under NY CPL, then I'd like you to please clarify that.
Sure. An "actual criminal proceeding" occurs in an "actual criminal court" (see above). Any proceedings that occur before them are Preliminary Proceedings. (see above)
Clear enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
By the phrase “operating correctly” are you referring to some normative theory of grand jury operation?
Or did you intend the meaning, “If the grand jury in this case was operating as usual...”? And, if you did intend that, then in New York, do state grand juries normally operate in accord with the law of that state?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
“The guiding principle is that expert opinion is proper when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Ok. And ...? I would posit that "professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert" medical examiner in determining the cause of death is most definitely "beyond the ken of the typical juror." That seems to only support my position.
Are you totally misunderstanding your own citation again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
CPL §190.25
CPL § 190.30
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
But I've come to realize you're none of the above. You're actually smart. But you're making the classic smart person mistake: thinking you're the smartest person in the room. To wit:
You keep quoting statutes thinking they mean one thing yet they actually mean the opposite of what you intend. To use this one as an example:
Sure, part 1 states that the grand jury is the ultimate determiner of facts.
But then in part 2 after a lengthy definition of what constitutes an "expert" it directly says that testimony shall "be received in such grand jury proceeding as evidence of the facts stated therein."
Therefore, the conclusion of the Medical Examiner is "received in such grand jury proceeding as evidence of the facts stated therein."
And before we go any further down this rabbit hole let me be clear: it DOES NOT MATTER if the grand jury accepts it as fact or not. Their only job is to determine with the evidence presented to them (like the ME's conclusion of homicide) if there is cause to continue on with an actual criminal proceeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
“Shall”?
That's not the word I'm reading. The word I'm reading is “may”.
“May” is a permissive word, not a mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
But that still does nothing to support your assertion that the grand jury's purpose is to determine criminality. They don't. See various preceding citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Sorry, but there have been a fair number of citations in this thread.
As a preliminary matter, please point out where I myself have either directly or indirectly asserted that “the grand jury's purpose is to determine criminality”? I'd like to see the exact context, before responding further. (You may, of course, link to specific comments here, using the “Link to This” url underneath each comment. Please do.)
Then, in the main, please be more definite as to exactly which of the “various preceding citations” you're referring to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Oh, so now I have to do your homework for you, too? I guess you couldn't be bothered to follow any of the links I provided in the first place which is why we have to do this little dance again. Ok, here you go Try reading them this time.
As a preliminary matter, please point out where I myself have either directly or indirectly asserted that “the grand jury's purpose is to determine criminality”?
OMG. You can't be fucking serious. Actually, I'm afraid you are. It's right there in the comment you started this whole nonsense with! This part in particular: "[The grand jury's decision] creates a case of a homicide that is not criminal (in the eyes of the grand jury)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Beyond that, though, it appears you've made another mistake. Looking at the part you quoted, it seems you're referring to the thread-starting comment, with a blank subject, and datestamped “ Dec 4th, 2014 @ 3:49pm”?
For further reference, here is the text of that 3:49pm comment, in full:
Is this the comment which you're asserting that I myself posted? Please look closely at the gravatars which appear in the left portion of every comment heading. Are you accusing me of posting that particular comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Hmm, that's odd. If you notice if you hover over the link I tried to create it appears to be an active link (by turning blue and underlining) but is not actually clickable. I guess it must have something to do with the fact that I tried to bold the link, but I've done that any number of times before with no problem. Weird.
But, yes, you quoted the comment I was referring to. I did notice that different gravatars between the one from the orginal comments and the one on your recent posts, but assumed it was the same person from a different location (eg: posting from work then later from home). After more thoroughly reviewing the thread I see now that you are not the same person that started the thread.
My bad all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
1) completely ignored this particular fact of the case, or;
2) accepted that a homicide did occur, but that Orc. Pantaleo could not possibly have been the responsible party ... but then who the hell else could it have been? "
No. Because "homicide" means two different things. One definition (the "medical definition") is, to paraphrase, "somebody killed someone." That's what the medical examiner determined. Everyone agrees on that. The second definition (the "legal definition") is, to paraphrase, "somebody killed someone in a criminal manner." So, the grand jury may have accepted that a "medical" homicide occurred, that Pantaleo is the party responsible, and that there was insufficient evidence that a "criminal" homicide was committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
But then who does?
Oh, wait, wait! I know! An actual jury which is exactly where the grand jury should have sent the case based on the unrefuted expert testimony they were given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New York homicide [was Re: ]
Look, I agree that I think there should have been an indictment based on the limited evidence I am aware of. But that is a completely separate question from the misleading discussion of the evidence in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things:
And let's be honest, if the one video-taped had been anyone other than a cop? One look at the videos and the answer would have been a resounding 'Yes, this deserves to go to trial', but since it's a cop...
2. 'Homicide that is not criminal', is called 'self-defense', which this wasn't, and even if it was, that's something that should have been decided at a real trial, with a prosecution and defense presenting arguments and evidence, instead of just one side doing so as in the case of grand juries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two things:
We give them such elevated privileges because it's necessary to do the job.
Now, how using an illegal method of doing this isn't considered at LEAST negligent homicide...I've got no answer for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two things:
Actually, they are not lawfully allowed to commit crimes in the name of "just doing their job" or "just doing whatever it takes to get the job done".
That is a huge part of the conscription of law enforcement to the destruction of our nation. That does include prosecutors, judges, etc.
This is actually *terrorism being used against the American people, the USA in the name of "law", while it is actually being committed under "color of law", pretend law created by someone who looks as if they can do so, but were never given that authority.
*28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two things:
So, if we say that the purpose of a grand jury is what it actually does... then the purpose is figure out how much leverage the prosecutor gets in plea bargaining. Isn't that so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two things:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two things:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correction: it creates a case of a homicide that, according to the Grand Jury's impression of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, does not require a trial to determine that it cannot have occured in a manner giving a reasonable suspicion of a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why? Should all opinion pieces now be required to have your stamp of approval prior to being published? Who put you in charge anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whether anyone has put me in charge or not doesn't make my opinions any more or less valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second, I don't really see the supposed "impossibility" as an opinion, just like I don't see 2 + 2 = 5 as an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I disagree. To adhere to your stance raises all kinds of thorny problems and is bad for society as a whole.
"I don't really see the supposed "impossibility" as an opinion, just like I don't see 2 + 2 = 5 as an opinion."
Well, I can't help you there.
For the record, the way you counter people stating things as fact that you don't think are fact is by actually providing what you think is fact and your support for that opinion. I may have missed it here, but I've not seen you actually do that -- so you're missing an opportunity to correct and educate people.
Just saying "shut up, you're wrong" only gets people to ignore you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for saying stupid things, I continue to align myself with Mark Twain on the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure if this is a paradox or just simple hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you are the sole arbiter of what is to be considered as stupid - got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is the #1 reason why that stance is unsupportable. Who gets to be the arbiter of what's stupid and what's not? How will that decision be made? Based on what criteria?
Sometimes things that appear to be stupid in the moment turn out to be unmitigated genius in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It sounds to me like you're in need of an emperor or (benevolent?) tyrant, and it would be remiss of me not to mention I'm available. Anytime you're ready; no hurry. I can promise I'll only use my powers for good and I can guarantee it'll be a great improvement over what's going on now.
What've you got to lose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks,
Roca Labs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More weight
The compression stops air coming in, not going out. What other choice would you have made with your dying breaths?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would like to see what action can be taken to remove the prosecutor form his job. He obviously does not understand his job. Guilt or Innocence is for a jury to determine.
I can see every lawyer for a black defendant he encounters in the future filing to papers to have him removed from their cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF¿ Wasn't it a phonevid¿
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grand juries
Seems to me that it makes sense to always have a trial when somebody is killed by law enforcement. If its clear that they used reasonable force, such a trial shouldn't be too burdensome. With an actual jury, we could move to a world where it's the people being policed that decided what level of force is "reasonable", rather than those applying the force and their friends.
Not sure what the answer is, but you have to wonder whether GJs are now doing more harm than good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grand juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: grand juries
I agree, a case like this needs to be prosecuted. But, turning it over to the federal office simply moves it up one rung on the ladder.
What's wanted is some mechanism whereby a lawyer who lives/works in the jurisdiction but not for the government is tapped to fill the role of prosecutor.
His/her job becomes not just to put not just the cop but the entire department on trial.
The whole purpose of the scheme is to underline the point that it is the voters who are taking steps to discipline misbehavior by their elected government or its agents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: grand juries
Tapped by whom? The police? The regular prosecutor? The judge? Those people are likely to pick someone they think will be friendly to the police position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: grand juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: grand juries
There's no way the defense will be allowed to choose the prosecutor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: grand juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grand juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: grand juries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But you know who the grand jury DID indict?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ramsey-orta-indictment-eric-garner_n_6264746.html
So, make SURE to indict a citizen for a minor weapons violation but ABSOLVE a cop of MURDERING a guy for being a capitalist trying to earn a buck so he can eat.
Officially, now, I proclaim FUCK THE POLICE, and all authority. They don't DESERVE the power they are given. I don't CARE anymore, I don't CARE if you claim there are "good cops" out there - they are ALL - every last one - part of a corrupt system that now is *targeting* the very populace they are SUPPOSED to be protecting.
Fuck. Them. All. Straight. To. Hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But you know who the grand jury DID indict?
Being the one who videotaped a cop murdering someone? Oh you are screwed, and the full weight of the 'justice' system will be brought down on you for daring to make the cops look bad.
(To be clear, the one who was indicted doesn't exactly seem like an up-and-up citizen, but the fact that he was indicted, while the cop wasn't, shows a glaring double-standard at work)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A solution might be to eliminate their sovereign immunity, not only could this make them at least a bit accountable for their actions but it would also relieve the tax payers as they would not have to completely shoulder the burden of the inevitable civil suits.
Another thing that should happen is fire the bad cops and do not rehire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The primary and immediate purpose is for an official to say "We Put on the Political Theater Show" (regardless of truth or justice) for your benefit, now shut the absolute fuck up before we take you down too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no connotation of "wrongful", or "illegal", or "criminal". Homicide can be accidental, or defensive, or wrongful, or planned, or . . . whatever.
That's just in reaction to your title. It would take pages to address the instances in which you display ignorance of the law in this post.
Stick to tech posts, where you push the idea that changing technology means that the discovery of key-making machines means you can steal my car with moral and legal impunity. It's just as ignorant of an outlook, but it's . . . narrower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's video evidence and the coroners report stating that a homicide occured however.
So now were in a situation, a man didnt commit a homicide even though the homicide occured. A homicide with no other party who committed a homicide.
The article even states he may have been found not guilty at an actual trial, but guess what, we didn't even get that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pot. Kettle.
I think this killing stinks. I think cops are completely out of control. I think we need to completely re-do our system of "justice."
But I don't blame the cops. I blame the people who hire the cops and send them out, armed and in large gangs, to enforce tens of thousands of liberty-choking laws and regs and rules.
We gave our cops guns and leather jackets and legal impunity to go out and kill people who do horrible things like sell loosies on the street.
We tell the cops that they cannot back down. If someone violates any of our countless little rules and controls, then we ultimately tell the cops to use whatever force they have to stop the behavior and bring the miscreant in.
All of this shiite about "homicide" and how the cops are brutal are just ways of not talking about how WE caused this.
So, pass a few more laws, why dontcha? You DO understand that every law you pass has to be backed up by force?
Well, here's your force, working just as you designed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I pass gas, but not laws - so don't wag your finger at me.
I suppose you are attempting the old slight of hand where voters are responsible for all the corruption in politics because they voted for corrupt politicians. Well, that falls apart with very little scrutiny. In fact it is bullshit perpetrated by those corrupt people you want to make everyone else responsible for.
So, anyways - you can take your accusations and go pound them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When a cop shoots you, be it on purpose or accidental, few will shed tears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you bother to comprehend what you cited earlier?
It explicitly calls out the supposed conundrum of a homicide without a perpetrator.
Well, let's read and understand what you quoted earlier:
[You cite this from: A Guide for Manner of Death Classification, 1st Ed., from the National Association of Medical Examiners ... I'm not going to bother to verify it; I'll just assume it's correct]
Pay attention to this part: "... committed by another person ..." That requires a "perpetrator" whether criminal or not.
The conundrum is that there was an act "committed by another person" but, according to the grand jury, there is no "other person."
You're the one with the "faulty understanding." You don't even understand your own citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Courtesy of The National Organization of Medical Examiners website, here's a current resource for: Hanzlick R, Hunsaker JH III, Davis GJ. A guide for manner of death classification. St. Louis, Missouri: National Association of Medical Examiners. 2002.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too bad you can't understand that when it defines a homicide as a "volitional act committed by another person" that requires there must be (to use your word) a "perpetrator."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thus, there is no homicide without a perpetrator. It's not actually that hard to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
btw, you are a lawyer - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe you're arguing legal semantics
What the FUCK is wrong with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can't believe you're arguing legal semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can't believe you're arguing legal semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can't believe you're arguing legal semantics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Daily News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was me.
Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2014 @ 5:56pm
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by....
The Daily News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This was me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a by-product of America's overseas wars?
A common complaint is that these former soldiers were never properly "deprogrammed" and many still harbor the same "us vs. them"/"kill or be killed" mentality that the U.S. military was widely condemned for. And then once back in the States, spreading that attitude to their fellow police officers in the force, further accelerating the transformation of so-called "peace officers" into domestic soldiers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941_pf.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a by-product of America's overseas wars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a by-product of America's overseas wars?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a by-product of America's overseas wars?
... has been happening since forever, it simply was not reported upon in the past. It seems to a recent trend due to the availability of recording devices and communication mediums. "The News" is no longer a thing that is controlled by the megalomaniacs of the world ... and they do not like this one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
15 cops, none of whom ever watch crime drama
There are what, a dozen (Fifteen?) cops standing around watching one cop try to rouse a guy who was just:
Put in a choke hold until he passed out
Had a grown-ass man pin his chest and neck to the ground for good measure
Had been lying utterly motionless for several minutes
And not even one of them thinks, "you know, maybe we should... I don't know... CHECK HIS PULSE JUST TO SEE?"
I would do that and I'm just a guy who watches a ton of Law & Order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 15 cops, none of whom ever watch crime drama
A was a Boy Scout.
Oh. And I give a crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something I don't understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something I don't understand
I think they just see themselves as being on the same side. It's difficult for them to then switch to prosecuting someone they feel like they're supposed to be helping. I'm not trying to excuse it, but prosecutors are subject to human failings just like anyone else, and the whole system needs to change in order to fix this problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outrage
A word to Daily whatever.. the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot stop it.
The video is available on line whether you like it or not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Does The US Have Grand Juries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Does The US Have Grand Juries?
So the Grand Jury is the last step before you are definitely going to pay either a hefty amount of money or life time.
To make the US court system (which is the laughing stock of the world) lead to sane results, you need to have "loser pays" rules which obviously have to come with standard rates for lawyers, and you need to get rid of the stupid "plea deal" abrogation of the right to a jury trial. In order to let that make sense, prosecutors must not be rewarded primarily on a base of convictions but rather on the actual work they put in.
Now standard rates for lawyers mean that there is no particular financial point to being a star trial lawyer any more, so guess who'll lobby against that.
Then the problem with the jury trials in the US is that a jury is required to be clueless, again making those lawyers who are apt at being convincing a valuable commodity.
Basically, you have to drain the justice system of monetary incentives and randomizing elements. Once you can expect the courts to serve justice without having to have the players (rather than the state) grease the wheels, Grand Juries no longer serve a purpose.
But in the current money-run justice business, someone has to determine when you are due for a bleeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Does The US Have Grand Juries?
See pp.2-3 of the New York Grand Juror's Handbook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once people start shooting back, people will get the message, since apathy and hoping that police will stop murdering and brutalizing people on their own seems to be going nowhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, that kind of reasoning implies that the police have the right or duty to torture people as long as they can do so without killing all of them.
If only a minority of the victims actually die (those whose preexisting conditions are solely responsible for them not surviving a modern life in a police controlled environment), police is apparently operating as intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Homicides and race
Betcha that the grand jury in NY was 90% white (or more), and upstanding citizens, all of whom have never encountered a bad cop on a bad day.
That and the Supreme Court's rulings that give cops a free 'get out of jail' card will always save their asses.
Yeah-just keep out of their way, unless you happen to be in their way on that given bad day.
Then you'll be wondering what ever happened to our supposed justice system. Call it "Just Us" and you have it right.
Cause it's not for you or I, and the cops know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Filmed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grand Jury is a tool of the prosecutor
They threw the fight and hope to blame lands on the grand jury. These prosecutors are just throwing the case so they don't need to deal with the blow back. The good news is they could call another Grand Jury and try again since no charges were levied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are a nation of lawless disorder. How am I supposed to have respect for the law, when I see homicides being committed right before my very eyes and the perpetrator walks away free so he can kill again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfectly logical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When discussing these incidents with two different friends, their reactions were "What can you do? That's the way things are. Just keep your head down and don't make trouble."
A third friend believes that the police/courts can do no wrong. Only maybe .00000000000001% of cops ever lie and they are swiftly dealt with. The rest are completely honest people who never do anything wrong. All these cases of the cops shooting people are totally the victims' faults. They should have done what the police told them, they shouldn't have been holding BB guns, they shouldn't have disagreed with the cops, etc. The cops are always right and nobody should ever argue with them, since they're just here to protect us.
When pointing out all the evidence to the contrary in the Michael Brown case, his response is "The jury found him innocent." He doesn't appear to understand the difference between a grand jury and a trial by jury. Any attempt to explain it to him, or to point out how the entire thing was rigged in Darren Wilson's favor just results in him repeating "The jury found him innocent!" in ever increasing volume until you stop talking.
Even when his own niece was sent to prison for a year for something that wasn't her fault, the system wasn't to blame, it was all because she had a public defender. See, the D.A. who decided to prosecute wasn't the problem, the prosecutor who pressured her to take a plea bargain wasn't the problem, it's all because she had a public defender. If she'd had a real lawyer, her experience would have been all kittens and rainbows. He would simply have explained that it was just a misunderstanding, the wise, completely fair prosecutor would have nodded his head knowingly and immediately dropped the charges and she would have been home in time for lunch.
Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's more of a perfect solution fallacy than false dichotomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
Far longer than 50 years. Try before the Civil War, and you have the problem. Remember, we used to approve of owning people for economic reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
Well, Congress members are quite more expensive than cotton pickers, but the principle still holds and provides reasonable returns of investment because the average Congress member can pick a lot more pockets than the average farm hand can pick cotton balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Self-fulfilling prophecy
From what I hear, congress members are quite a bit less expensive. I forget where I heard it, but someone once said that the real shame of how corruption works in the US isn't that congresspeople can be bought, it's that they can be bought so cheaply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't resist arrest, don't die.
It was death, it was a homicide, it was an accident, and too bad. I'd rather have people obey the law.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
I'd rather have cops that act within the law they are tasked to defend.
Homicide indeed - too bad the piece of shit perpetrator got off scot-free and is walking the streets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
You do realize you're defending an incompetent cop, one who doesn't even know how to apply a choke hold without killing the subject? What an altogether charming individual you are. :-P
I don't think the law on selling untaxed tobacco cigarettes says anything about capital punishment. What part of serve and protect don't you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
You do realize you're defending an incompetent cop, one who doesn't even know how to apply a choke hold without killing the subject?
I think you're applying the wrong criticism. He should be inept at applying choke holds, because he shouldn't have any practice doing it, because it's against NYPD policy. The problem is not just that he did it wrong, it's that he did it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
"What part of serve and protect don't you understand?"
When was the last time that you saw ANY police vehicle with those words used as their 'mantra' - instead of the 911 EMERGENCY plastered along the side?
IMO, the police have silently changed their mantra (to GOD knows what) while the public still assumes its the 'serve and protect'.
As a member of the 'public' I dont have to call on the police all that often, all though I will say that when I have done so, I was the one that was put under extreme suspicion as opposed to the 'bad guy'.
I've got a cousin who has been a 911 operator for years now (10+) and from talking to her, its like they are the ones who will serve and protect you, while the police are the 'grunts' NOTHING more.
The 'to serve and protect' mantra of the police, across the country has gone out the window a while ago... Its just that the public at large still thinks (hopes/wishes?) its in effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
In the town where I grew up they changed the motto from "To Serve and Protect" to "Pride and Professionalism". I don't know of anyone who saw it as an improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
Is it just me or does this argument sound familiar to this one: "It was her fault I raped her because she was wearing that mini-skirt. I guess dressing like that was a bad decision on her part."?
Someone else's bad decisions do not justify the officer's bad decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
Victim blaming is just characteristic of the problem with cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
Is it just me or does this argument sound similar to this one:...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
whats the difference between a cop and a crook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
Fear is much easier to instill than respect, so it could be a matter of just going for whatever one is capable of obtaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
It's much quicker too. You don't even need training to do it.
On the other hand, the police do want us to respect them, and now it's going to take a lot of time and effort on their part for that to happen as things are going. They don't appear to be trained in, nor value, that skill anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
If the cop wants to be able to come home at the end of the day, they should probably avoid unlawful arrests, defective warrants, failure to obtain a warrant, or otherwise failing to follow the law themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plummer_v._State#Internet_meme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
But in seriousness, it is the kind of misinformation that could have serious negative consequences if someone acted on it, believing it to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
Eric Garner was accused by an officer of selling individual cigarettes unlicensed and without paying tax (on a product he had already, presumably, legally purchased and paid tax on). An offense punishable by paying a fine, not prison time. The officer then assaulted Garner. As Garner resisted the assault, the officer applied a chokehold: lethal force. This was in every sense not a peaceful arrest, but an illegal arrest, and thus Garner had the right to resist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
However, an arrest in which exceeds the legal standard of necessary force, i.e. not conducted in a legal manner at least regarding the level of force used, can be resisted as it presents a threat to the person which cannot be remedied in the courts (e.g. you died in a chokehold).
In summary, I agree that you cannot resist an arrest just because you believe the officer has no legal grounds to arrest you. However, if an officer commits an assault or trespass onto your person not appropriate to the situation (which I see as an unlawful/illegal procedure), you may resist that in self defense. I believe the Garner case is an example of the later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
Of course in practice that is just more likely to get you killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't resist arrest, don't die.
The motto of oppressors worldwide!
Allow me to quote you:
Make no mistake, police are there to ensure societal compliance.
COMPLY!! COMPLY!! YOU WILL OBEY!!! YOU WILL OBEY!!!
Thank goodness there were people around a couple of hundred years ago that actually had the will to resist our oppressors. Too bad there is a new generation of redcoats exemplified by people like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ferguson is not a civil rights case, NY is a civil rights case
Now the NY case just makes me sick. Is selling loosies really worth killing a man over? You can clearly see from the video that he did not fight back. He may have struggled once he was being choked, but 100% of the people would struggle for air while being choked. Those cops should be locked up with the general prison population to get their true reward.
But the reason behind all of these types of abuses is the cops goal today is to show an overwhelming display of force to put the fear of God into the criminal. Whether they sell loose cigarettes, rob stores or even just for rolling car odomoters back.
About that last case, just recently in Atlanta a use car dealer was busted for rolling car odometers back. The cops showed up in swat outfits, many of them, and stormed the dealer. Yep, you read that right. The cops showed up ready for a gun battle over a petty crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ferguson is not a civil rights case, NY is a civil rights case
Killing someone over that kind of law is an abject horror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ferguson is not a civil rights case, NY is a civil rights case
It's worse than that. The crime is for not paying the tobacco tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop the lax reporting
Michael Brown's INITIAL issue was NOT so petty crime - robbery and assault but still, not terrible in the scope of other crimes.
Michael Brown ESCALATED that to aggravated assault, assault on a peace officer and resisting arrest when Michael Brown ATTACKED the police officer INSIDE HIS CAR and tried to take his weapon. At that point, white,black,yellow,purple or whatever, you're in the big leagues. Michael Brown CHARGED Wilson... so, another assault. Wilson already had his weapon drawn and fired several shots to stop or slow Brown before firing the fatal shot.
Everyone mentions Michael Brown being unarmed... but let's face it, a 6' 5" guy weighing almost 300 lbs can inflict quite a bit of harm... especially once he gets on top of you - which is what would have happened if he had actually tackled Wilson.
And lest we forget... there WAS an accomplice with Brown, so in essence the officer was facing an attack from two potential thugs. He did what he was trained to do.
Let's face facts... Brown was a thug and bully who robbed some poor guy and then attacked a police officer and tried to take his gun. He was shot in the commissions of numerous felonies - assault, aggravated assault, assault on a peace officer, resisting arrest, etc. He WASN'T shot for robbing a convenience store.
Brownis not a saint. And the officer shouldn't be charged with protecting his own life from a thug/bully who is too stupid or high to know not to attack an officer and charge an armed cop with a gun drawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the lax reporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the lax reporting
Second, typing LIKE THIS makes you seem like an INSANE person regardless if the VALIDITY of your ARGUMENTS. Just TRUST ME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the lax reporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the lax reporting
I do accept the notion that Brown is not a saint. But in the eyes of the law he is still innocent until proven guilty. His guilt has not been proven. Only thing you have successfully done is to line up the cherry picked witness . accounts You say, "Let's face fact..." Well you are only really facing facts from your particular side.
Learn to see your blind spot before telling others to "face facts..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the lax reporting
You do realize that nobody thinks he is, right? His sanctity is not terribly relevant to the issue.
But let me admit my bias: I have no opinion over Brown specifically. I am fully aware that it will never be possible for me (or anyone else) to know what actually happened with him, so cannot form anything like a reasonable opinion. The reason why it's impossible to know, by the way, is because of how the cops handled the whole thing.
My problem is with how the cops behaved with public at large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stop the lax reporting
This, 100x. Based on what I've read I'm fairly certain that the shooting primarily due to Brown's actions. I'm not sure there should not have been an indictment but I personally believe (again, based on what I've read) that Officer Wilson did not murder Brown.
That being said, the response afterwards from the police department, between arresting journalists and gassing crowds, was inappropriate and unreasonable. I also believe it had the opposite effect intended; it probably caused more violence than if they'd allowed the initial protests with minimal force.
The problem is there's such a polarizing effects to these events. It seems like you have to be on one "side" or the other. If you think Brown's shooting was justified, you must be on the side of the cops and think Garner was justified too. Yet I personally believe Brown's shooting was justified...but I don't think the same thing about Garner, and I 100% think there should have been an indictment in his case (not certain on Brown). And I'm completely against the (in my opinion) excessive riot control and actions against the press in Ferguson, especially as that probably created more confusion about the whole situation.
I wish we could break them apart, because I think a lot of rational people are getting hung up over the facts of Brown's death (possibly including Techdirt authors) compared to the string of other (in my opinion) actual abuses that happened at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the lax reporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case I more or less side with Garner. The guy wasn't hurting anyone, he may have been resisting but he was by no means fighting back, hurting anyone, or attempting to hurt anyone and for the police to restrain Garner with a choke hold far after he was restrained and far longer than necessary (if a choke hold was even necessary in the first place) was excessive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The videos in this article
PS. Black cop got indited for getting shot by white cops: http://bemedia.weebly.com/bellas-corner/off-duty-black-officer-shot-28xs-by-white-officers-then-sent enced-to-40-years-for-self-defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The videos in this article
Copyright isn't about censorship, eh? I give you Exhibit A: a cell phone camera video being taken down by someone who doesn't have any copyright over the video, therefore hiding important public information over an ongoing controversy regarding the police engaged in potentially illegal behavior.
Yet it's filesharers that are the criminals. I thought it couldn't get any better after Amazon removed people's copies of 1984 from people's Kindle readers. How silly of me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The videos in this article
It has and always will be about propaganda.
Independent sources, when corroborated, are much more real and authentic although still subject to the human trait of bias. This is difficult to avoid, obviously. Those that claim to be "Fair and Balanced" are most likely not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who make such comments;
1) Are Willfully Lying.
2) Have absolutely no idea why we have the Grand Jury System.
3) Know why we have the Grand Jury System but are willfully lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of comprehension of homicide
The reality is that you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer was behaving in an unjustified manner when he put a large man who was resisting arrest into a headlock in order to convict him of willful manslaughter. What happened isn't in question; the question is whether or not a reasonable person would consider his actions to be reasonable given the circumstances. That's a pretty tough bridge to cross; the police are allowed to subdue suspects who resist arrest, and but for the medical problems that the person had, he probably would have survived the experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of comprehension of homicide
In a jury trial, yes. The grand jury is supposed to decide whether there's enough evidence that a crime has occurred to go to trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lack of comprehension of homicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of comprehension of homicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile some dude got choked to death over selling cigarettes without a license. What a wonderful police state we live in. This does not look like it will end well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yabut, he was avoiding paying tobacco taxes. That's like genocide or something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Situation: A man is suspected of selling cigarettes illegally. He is stopped by police and denies selling anything. They attempt arrest, he says "Don't touch me, please," and an officer puts him in a choke hold from behind, then shoves him to the ground and holds him there. He states he can't breathe, and paramedics are called. When they arrive he goes into cardiac arrest in the ambulance and dies an hour later.
Some additional details: At no point did they confirm the suspect was actually selling cigarettes nor if he had them on him at the time. He did not resist arrest nor make any aggressive movements towards the officers. Chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD since 1993. The cause of death was directly related to the chokehold and detainment on the ground, along with preexisting medical conditions, although the individual would not have died without police actions. The suspect had previously been arrested for numerous petty crimes, including the one he was currently being accused of, and was currently on bail. The police officer who performed the chokehold had been previously the subject of civil rights lawsuits where he had allegedly abused detainees, including forcing two black men to strip naked on the street before all charges were dismissed.
Now let's get back to the law.
So a man, not currently engaged in any crime, is choked, shoved to the ground, and dies due to complications arising from being choked and shoved to the ground. Assault by choking is a felony under New York law, and prohibited by police procedure. There's not even any question of evidence...we have the actions being directly recorded.
And yet we aren't even going to charge the person who did it? How is using an unauthorized, felony level assault on a unresisting individual, who is not committing a crime, not even worth pursing in court?
You can have all the pages of argument over this sentence or that sentence of the law, but it horrifies me that a man who wasn't committing a crime and wasn't a threat was killed and, due to technicalities, we aren't even going to charge the people responsible.
It's this sort of thing that causes people to roll their eyes at the law. When normal human behavior is illegal, and potential murder (this case) or larceny on an unbelievable scale (Wall Street) isn't even tried in court, what other reaction can you have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]