Good Choke

[donquixote99]

Grand jury in Staten Island declines to indict officer who killed unarmed Eric Garner with a chokehold. Officer says it was an accident, he didn't realize he was choking the man.

Assumed the guy was lying when he said "I can't breathe" I guess. Natural mistake. He probably heard the joke about the first black guy on a submarine, when he was a kid, like I did. Punch line was "...you know how these niggers lie."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/ny...rner.html?_r=0

[Tom Joad]

I watched the video and I can't believe the grand jury didn't send this one to trial. It makes me suspect that there was some kind of jury intimidation going on. Probably very subtle so as to be plausibly denied.

I like the title you picked btw.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I watched the video and I can't believe the grand jury didn't send this one to trial. It makes me suspect that there was some kind of jury intimidation going on...

Like, say, what actually happened?

1. Offender had a long criminal record dating back 35 years.
2. Was illegally selling taxable items (multiple times).
3. Refused to comply.
4. CONTINUED to refuse to comply once engaged.
5. Got himself accidentally killed.

Easiest way to avoid this?

6. Don't commit criminal activity.
7. Comply when legally detained.

He had since 1980 (first arrest) to figure this out...

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Easiest way to avoid this?

change the culture of cops

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by noonereal

change the culture of cops

That's going to take something pretty damned drastic, but I'm all for it.

I think a whole lot of Cops are going to have to be replaced.

Maybe we should do something with cops like Ronald Regan did with the Air Traffic Controllers.**

** that oughta wind up the badgelickers.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Like, say, what actually happened?

1. Offender had a long criminal record dating back 35 years.
2. Was illegally selling taxable items (multiple times).
3. Refused to comply.
4. CONTINUED to refuse to comply once engaged.
5. Got himself accidentally killed.

Easiest way to avoid this?

6. Don't commit criminal activity.
7. Comply when legally detained.

He had since 1980 (first arrest) to figure this out...

1. As I understand it, the police violated NYC "chokehold" rules.

2. Does being a purveyor of illicit cigarettes, even a habitual one, carry a death sentence? No.

3. "I can't breathe." generally means someone can't breathe and you should probably get the f**k off of his neck so he can.......because being a petty tax cheat is not a crime punishable by death.

That's how I see it.

Dave

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Like, say, what actually happened?

1. Offender had a long criminal record dating back 35 years.
2. Was illegally selling taxable items (multiple times).
3. Refused to comply.
4. CONTINUED to refuse to comply once engaged.
5. Got himself accidentally killed.

Easiest way to avoid this?

6. Don't commit criminal activity.
7. Comply when legally detained.

He had since 1980 (first arrest) to figure this out...

The job as described (engage until compliance) could be done by a robot with the IQ of a rodent. Police are expected to function at a human level, which would include not killing people for selling loose cigarettes.

Hell, robots might do better, as they wouldn't get pissed.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Like, say, what actually happened?

1. Offender had a long criminal record dating back 35 years.
2. Was illegally selling taxable items (multiple times).
3. Refused to comply.
4. CONTINUED to refuse to comply once engaged.
5. Got himself accidentally killed.

Easiest way to avoid this?

6. Don't commit criminal activity.
7. Comply when legally detained.

He had since 1980 (first arrest) to figure this out...

Rolleyes my ass. First of all, this wasn't an accident. An accident isn't what actually happened. An accident is when an air conditioner falls out of an apartment window and crushes Garner's larynx. That's an accident. When there's a physical altercation, regardless of the office or license of one of the participants, and one crushes the other's larynx without due cause, it's at a minimum, a charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Carrying a badge does not excuse physical over-reaction to what has not been proven to be the commission of an illegal act. That is determined in a court of law, not on the street.

Assault is not an accident. My half-invalid brother being physically assaulted on the street in front of his house when his response to being ordered off the street by a Forest Park cop, was "...give me a minute to think about that." And the reaction to his response was much the same as Garner's...only my brother was fortunate enough to survive. Is "...give me a minute to think about that..." a criminal offense? Is ordering someone off the street in front of his own home a "legal detention"? I don't think so.

Being out on the street in front of one's residence is not the commission of an illegal activity. An accident is an accident, an assault is assault. Nobody's done anything illegal until they've been convicted of doing something illegal. Unless they're in nazi Germany and being assaulted by the Gestapo.

Accidental lethal police force. Now there's an idiotic concept outta Zeke and worthy of .

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I watched the video and I can't believe the grand jury didn't send this one to trial. It makes me suspect that there was some kind of jury intimidation going on. Probably very subtle so as to be plausibly denied.

I like the title you picked btw.

As was clearly explained on the evening news, the prosecutor and only the prosecutor decides what evidence the grand jury will and will not see. And since the prosecutor has to work so closely with the police department, an incestuous relationship so to speak, prosecutors routinely steer the juries away from prosecution by allowing only evidence that show the officer in the best possible light, even in cases where police misconduct is obvious. There certainly is ample evidence of that fact. And the opposite is true of the defense as the prosecutor will want a guilty verdict. In the case of the defense the grand jury will only see the most incriminating evidence and all evidence to the contrary will be withheld. This has been happening for decades as evidenced by all the black folks being released from prison after being found innocent.

Basically the entire grand jury system is perverted and corrupt and has no place in a system of "justice".

As civilians, we're fucked from the word go in this country with a corrupt political process and a corrupt judicial process. And oddly we don't even have the good sense to blush when we criticize the same actions in other nations.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by MrPots

As was clearly explained on the evening news, the prosecutor and only the prosecutor decides what evidence the grand jury will and will not see. And since the prosecutor has to work so closely with the police department, an incestuous relationship so to speak, prosecutors routinely steer the juries away from prosecution by allowing only evidence that show the officer in the best possible light, even in cases where police misconduct is obvious. There certainly is ample evidence of that fact. And the opposite is true of the defense as the prosecutor will want a guilty verdict. In the case of the defense the grand jury will only see the most incriminating evidence and all evidence to the contrary will be withheld. This has been happening for decades as evidenced by all the black folks being released from prison after being found innocent.

Basically the entire grand jury system is perverted and corrupt and has no place in a system of "justice".

As civilians, we're fucked from the word go in this country with a corrupt political process and a corrupt judicial process. And oddly we don't even have the good sense to blush when we criticize the same actions in other nations.

A very good post Mr. Pots and to the point.