info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: WTF do grand juries do, anyway?
26 views
Skip to first unread message
rangerssuck
Dec 4, 2014, 12:29:27 AM12/4/14
to
I'm no lawyer, but...
1) There's video of cops applying what looks an awful lot like a choke hold on a guy who was selling cigarettes on the street. You can clearly hear him say, several times, "I can't breathe."
2) the coroner declared the death to be a homicide. Homicide does NOT mean "murder", "manslaughter" or anything other than that the death was caused by the actions of another person.
3) the purpose of a trial is to determine whether the accused is guilty of a crime or not. This is NOT (in my understanding) the job of a grand jury.
So, WTF? How does the grand jury in NY vote not to send the cop to trial?
discuss.
1) There's video of cops applying what looks an awful lot like a choke hold on a guy who was selling cigarettes on the street. You can clearly hear him say, several times, "I can't breathe."
2) the coroner declared the death to be a homicide. Homicide does NOT mean "murder", "manslaughter" or anything other than that the death was caused by the actions of another person.
3) the purpose of a trial is to determine whether the accused is guilty of a crime or not. This is NOT (in my understanding) the job of a grand jury.
So, WTF? How does the grand jury in NY vote not to send the cop to trial?
discuss.
John B. Slocomb
Dec 4, 2014, 5:53:27 AM12/4/14
to
bring the case to trial.
As for a Homicide, it could be that it was a "justifiable homicide".
As for not being able to breath. Clear speech would seemingly indicate
an ability to breath.
--
cheers,
John B.Slocomb
rangerssuck
Dec 4, 2014, 8:54:21 AM12/4/14
to
b) the fact that the man died from asphyxiation would seemingly indicate otherwise.
mog...@hotmail.com
Dec 4, 2014, 10:06:34 AM12/4/14
to
On Thursday, December 4, 2014 5:53:27 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
F. George McDuffee
Dec 4, 2014, 10:56:05 AM12/4/14
to
http://tinyurl.com/9un8f4g
"The United States is virtually the only common law
jurisdiction in the world that continues to use the grand
jury to screen criminal indictments.[1][2] Generally
speaking, a grand jury may issue an indictment for a crime,
also known as a "true bill," only if it finds, based upon
the evidence that has been presented to it, ==>that there is
probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by
a criminal suspect.<=="
Key phrase is "..., based upon the evidence that has been
presented to it,..." As is well known, the grand jury
system in many jurisdictions is subject to gross
prosecutorial abuse by the selective presentation [or
omission] of frequently "secret" testimony/evidence.
Without knowing the details and context of what was (and was
not) presented to the grand jury, it is impossible to
meaningfully critique their verdict.
As the article notes, *HISTORICALLY* in the U. S.:
"In the early decades of the United States grand juries
played a major role in public matters. During that period
counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all
decisions be made by at least twelve of the grand jurors,
(e.g., for a twenty-three-person grand jury, twelve people
would constitute a bare majority). Any citizen could bring a
matter before a grand jury directly, from a public work that
needed repair, to the delinquent conduct of a public
official, to a complaint of a crime, and grand juries could
conduct their own investigations. In that era most criminal
prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law
enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his
family, or even by laymen. A layman could bring a bill of
indictment to the grand jury; {note three requirements} if
the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a
trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the
court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to
the complainant."
It seems obvious the citizen "grand jury" has been captured
by the political administration and now is largely an
anachronistic "fig leaf," which should be abolished. It is
however not clear what sort of institution should replace
it. One suggestion is to expand the initiative process to
include the function of a grand jury so that the citizens
could force an inquest/investigation under an independent
counsel into civil operation of the government, if not
individual crimes.
As in so many things, the changes in the
socioeconomic/demographic structure of the community, and
the complexity of technology have been so great that the
traditional procedures and processes are increasingly dis
functional and even counterproductive ==>A significant
complicating factor is that increasingly the American public
expects to have their cake and eat it, in that they demand
civil liberties, *AND* law-and-order, without
participation/contribution on their part.<== IT DOESN'T
WORK THAT WAY! For example if the communities of color
don't want to be policed by white officers and they don't
want their community run by white politicians, the young men
and women of color in the community must step up and enter
law enforcement, and the adults must become involved in the
operation/governance of their community. IIRC Ferguson had a
7% voter turnout in their last election.
--
Unka' George
"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"
-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"
Tom Gardner
Dec 4, 2014, 11:08:26 AM12/4/14
to
Resisting arrest?
rangerssuck
Dec 4, 2014, 1:07:54 PM12/4/14
to
SnA Higgins
Dec 4, 2014, 8:27:04 PM12/4/14
to
I was a juror on a grand jury that investigated a cop shooting. It was the
2nd called for the same case as the 1st was declared invalid because one of
the alternate jurors acted inappropriately in the 1st jury. They, the 1st
jury, handed down an indictment for murder for the cop.
We held the case as no truth or no indictment. I don't know what was said in
the 1st jury cuz it is sealed forever. I know that the evidence we saw
didn't hold anything that would make me believe we had made a mistake, and
still think that today. But...
What did the 1st jury uncover that we didn't? Or was it's outcome race
related? The cop was white. The dead guy was black.
Since the DA got a do-over - there was a special prosecutor appointed,was
evidence with-held from us that the 1st saw? If I remember right the
prosecutor was the same guy in front of both juries. Again if memory serves
me, there were more blacks on the 1st jury than ours, we had 2 out of 15.
The transcripts are sealed forever. I'm trying to convince myself that we
did the right thing. With the evidence we were presented I'm sure we did.
If the prosecutor can with-hold evidence the process is hopelessly flawed.
And our decision was invalid.
So much for indicting a ham sandwich.
Steve
"rangerssuck" <range...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41d86130-a44a-4438...@googlegroups.com...
2nd called for the same case as the 1st was declared invalid because one of
the alternate jurors acted inappropriately in the 1st jury. They, the 1st
jury, handed down an indictment for murder for the cop.
We held the case as no truth or no indictment. I don't know what was said in
the 1st jury cuz it is sealed forever. I know that the evidence we saw
didn't hold anything that would make me believe we had made a mistake, and
still think that today. But...
What did the 1st jury uncover that we didn't? Or was it's outcome race
related? The cop was white. The dead guy was black.
Since the DA got a do-over - there was a special prosecutor appointed,was
evidence with-held from us that the 1st saw? If I remember right the
prosecutor was the same guy in front of both juries. Again if memory serves
me, there were more blacks on the 1st jury than ours, we had 2 out of 15.
The transcripts are sealed forever. I'm trying to convince myself that we
did the right thing. With the evidence we were presented I'm sure we did.
If the prosecutor can with-hold evidence the process is hopelessly flawed.
And our decision was invalid.
So much for indicting a ham sandwich.
Steve
"rangerssuck" <range...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41d86130-a44a-4438...@googlegroups.com...
Larry Jaques
Dec 4, 2014, 9:56:26 PM12/4/14
to
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:08:23 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:
>On 12/4/2014 10:06 AM, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Really? What did the guy die from then?
>
>Resisting arrest?
BINGO! Yet another guy doing stupid things in front of armed men.
He probably wouldn't have died (though I'll bet it was his heart,
not his O2 level which killed him) if he'd simply presented his wrists
to the cops. By the time film was rolling, he was surrounded by cops,
so you know there was a long buildup of anger in the cops while they
grouped, once again. "Death by cop" is my COD. It was a suicide.
now...
That choke-holding cop should be prosecuted, period. Why didn't they
taze him, or order him to surrender at gunpoint? <sigh> Many
departments banned its use when people died the year it was
introduced.
--snip--
Final Suit Over LAPD's Use of Chokehold Settled
September 29, 1993
Ending a long string of lawsuits over the Los Angeles Police
Department's use of the carotid chokehold, the City Council on Tuesday
agreed to pay $450,000 to the father of a man who died 11 years ago in
police custody.
James Mincey Jr.'s death was the 16th over seven years that was
attributed to the chokehold, and it led to the Los Angeles Police
Commission's virtual ban on the use of the tactic.
Tuesday's City Council vote settles the last in a series of cases
against the city, just as some officers are arguing that the tactic is
not dangerous and should be reinstated.
The payment to James Mincey Sr. is in addition to $1.1 million paid to
four other Mincey relatives.
Mincey's case has several similarities to that of Rodney G. King,
whose 1991 beating also led to calls for reform of the Police
Department's use of force policies.
Mincey, a 20-year-old African-American, was pursued by Los Angeles
Foothill Division officers in the spring of 1982 after he reportedly
failed to stop for a police officer who saw his car's cracked
windshield. Mincey had been cited a few minutes before for speeding
and the cracked windshield but, in the second encounter, he sped off
and led officers on a high-speed chase, authorities said.
The police finally stopped Mincey in front of his mother's home in
Lake View Terrace, where he was taken into custody. But officers said
Mincey began to struggle when they tried to switch his handcuffs from
in front to behind his back. He was restrained by several officers,
including one who applied the chokehold.
Mincey died two weeks later after neck injuries deprived his brain of
adequate oxygen, according to a coroner's report.
The Police Commission subsequently barred officers from using the hold
except in life-threatening situations.
But some officers have recently argued for a restoration of the
tactic, saying the King case proved that police do not have adequate
techniques to restrain suspects. "Anything should be looked at that
would help our officers do their job," said David Zeigler, president
of the police officer's union. "Other departments still use it and
without any adverse effect that I know of."
But City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said there is incontrovertible
evidence that the hold led to a number of deaths, most of them among
young African-American men. "I think the moratorium on the hold in the
last decade has not only saved money, but saved lives," Yaroslavsky
said.
--snip--
I'm wondering if the PTBs are simply wanting to get a full-blown race
riot into full gear just before Christmas for some reason. John Q.
Officer will soon be saying "Welcome to Martial Law, folks."
--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha
wrote:
>On 12/4/2014 10:06 AM, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Really? What did the guy die from then?
>
>Resisting arrest?
He probably wouldn't have died (though I'll bet it was his heart,
not his O2 level which killed him) if he'd simply presented his wrists
to the cops. By the time film was rolling, he was surrounded by cops,
so you know there was a long buildup of anger in the cops while they
grouped, once again. "Death by cop" is my COD. It was a suicide.
now...
That choke-holding cop should be prosecuted, period. Why didn't they
taze him, or order him to surrender at gunpoint? <sigh> Many
departments banned its use when people died the year it was
introduced.
--snip--
Final Suit Over LAPD's Use of Chokehold Settled
September 29, 1993
Ending a long string of lawsuits over the Los Angeles Police
Department's use of the carotid chokehold, the City Council on Tuesday
agreed to pay $450,000 to the father of a man who died 11 years ago in
police custody.
James Mincey Jr.'s death was the 16th over seven years that was
attributed to the chokehold, and it led to the Los Angeles Police
Commission's virtual ban on the use of the tactic.
Tuesday's City Council vote settles the last in a series of cases
against the city, just as some officers are arguing that the tactic is
not dangerous and should be reinstated.
The payment to James Mincey Sr. is in addition to $1.1 million paid to
four other Mincey relatives.
Mincey's case has several similarities to that of Rodney G. King,
whose 1991 beating also led to calls for reform of the Police
Department's use of force policies.
Mincey, a 20-year-old African-American, was pursued by Los Angeles
Foothill Division officers in the spring of 1982 after he reportedly
failed to stop for a police officer who saw his car's cracked
windshield. Mincey had been cited a few minutes before for speeding
and the cracked windshield but, in the second encounter, he sped off
and led officers on a high-speed chase, authorities said.
The police finally stopped Mincey in front of his mother's home in
Lake View Terrace, where he was taken into custody. But officers said
Mincey began to struggle when they tried to switch his handcuffs from
in front to behind his back. He was restrained by several officers,
including one who applied the chokehold.
Mincey died two weeks later after neck injuries deprived his brain of
adequate oxygen, according to a coroner's report.
The Police Commission subsequently barred officers from using the hold
except in life-threatening situations.
But some officers have recently argued for a restoration of the
tactic, saying the King case proved that police do not have adequate
techniques to restrain suspects. "Anything should be looked at that
would help our officers do their job," said David Zeigler, president
of the police officer's union. "Other departments still use it and
without any adverse effect that I know of."
But City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said there is incontrovertible
evidence that the hold led to a number of deaths, most of them among
young African-American men. "I think the moratorium on the hold in the
last decade has not only saved money, but saved lives," Yaroslavsky
said.
--snip--
I'm wondering if the PTBs are simply wanting to get a full-blown race
riot into full gear just before Christmas for some reason. John Q.
Officer will soon be saying "Welcome to Martial Law, folks."
--
Believe nothing.
No matter where you read it,
Or who said it,
Even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.
-- Buddha
John B. Slocomb
Dec 5, 2014, 1:17:16 AM12/5/14
to
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:54:17 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
cases in New Hampshire, one a car accident and the second a shooting
by a uniformed policeman the Grand jury ruled that there was no case
to try. Whether the actual terminology of "justifiable homicide" was
used I do not recollect but in the two cases there certainly was a
homicide and the grand jury certainly did return what was in essence a
"no crime committed" verdict.
>b) the fact that the man died from asphyxiation would seemingly indicate otherwise.
--
cheers,
John B.Slocomb
<range...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, December 4, 2014 5:53:27 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 21:29:22 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
>> <range...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm no lawyer, but...
>> >
>> >1) There's video of cops applying what looks an awful lot like a choke hold on a guy who was selling cigarettes on the street. You can clearly hear him say, several times, "I can't breathe."
>> >
>> >2) the coroner declared the death to be a homicide. Homicide does NOT mean "murder", "manslaughter" or anything other than that the death was caused by the actions of another person.
>> >
>> >3) the purpose of a trial is to determine whether the accused is guilty of a crime or not. This is NOT (in my understanding) the job of a grand jury.
>> >
>> >So, WTF? How does the grand jury in NY vote not to send the cop to trial?
>> >
>> >discuss.
>>
>> The Grand Jury, in most states, decides whether there is reason to
>> bring the case to trial.
>>
>> As for a Homicide, it could be that it was a "justifiable homicide".
>>
>> As for not being able to breath. Clear speech would seemingly indicate
>> an ability to breath.
>> --
>> cheers,
>>
>> John B.Slocomb
>
>a) Justifiable homicide is not for the grand jury to decide. That is for a trial jury.
>
I believe that may vary according to the state. I know that in two
>On Thursday, December 4, 2014 5:53:27 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 21:29:22 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
>> <range...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm no lawyer, but...
>> >
>> >1) There's video of cops applying what looks an awful lot like a choke hold on a guy who was selling cigarettes on the street. You can clearly hear him say, several times, "I can't breathe."
>> >
>> >2) the coroner declared the death to be a homicide. Homicide does NOT mean "murder", "manslaughter" or anything other than that the death was caused by the actions of another person.
>> >
>> >3) the purpose of a trial is to determine whether the accused is guilty of a crime or not. This is NOT (in my understanding) the job of a grand jury.
>> >
>> >So, WTF? How does the grand jury in NY vote not to send the cop to trial?
>> >
>> >discuss.
>>
>> The Grand Jury, in most states, decides whether there is reason to
>> bring the case to trial.
>>
>> As for a Homicide, it could be that it was a "justifiable homicide".
>>
>> As for not being able to breath. Clear speech would seemingly indicate
>> an ability to breath.
>> --
>> cheers,
>>
>> John B.Slocomb
>
>a) Justifiable homicide is not for the grand jury to decide. That is for a trial jury.
>
cases in New Hampshire, one a car accident and the second a shooting
by a uniformed policeman the Grand jury ruled that there was no case
to try. Whether the actual terminology of "justifiable homicide" was
used I do not recollect but in the two cases there certainly was a
homicide and the grand jury certainly did return what was in essence a
"no crime committed" verdict.
>b) the fact that the man died from asphyxiation would seemingly indicate otherwise.
cheers,
John B.Slocomb
Tom Gardner
Dec 5, 2014, 8:19:39 AM12/5/14
to
respect for the rule of law...like all leftists. So, no surprise you
take the side against law and order. You leftists are just so
inconvenienced by laws, just like your Messiah Obammy.
Tom Gardner
Dec 5, 2014, 8:24:07 AM12/5/14
to
On 12/4/2014 9:56 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:08:23 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2014 10:06 AM, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Really? What did the guy die from then?
>>
>> Resisting arrest?
>
> BINGO! Yet another guy doing stupid things in front of armed men.
> He probably wouldn't have died (though I'll bet it was his heart,
> not his O2 level which killed him) if he'd simply presented his wrists
> to the cops. By the time film was rolling, he was surrounded by cops,
> so you know there was a long buildup of anger in the cops while they
> grouped, once again. "Death by cop" is my COD. It was a suicide.
>
Stupid guy! Don't people have some personal responsibility any more?
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:08:23 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/2014 10:06 AM, mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Really? What did the guy die from then?
>>
>> Resisting arrest?
>
> BINGO! Yet another guy doing stupid things in front of armed men.
> He probably wouldn't have died (though I'll bet it was his heart,
> not his O2 level which killed him) if he'd simply presented his wrists
> to the cops. By the time film was rolling, he was surrounded by cops,
> so you know there was a long buildup of anger in the cops while they
> grouped, once again. "Death by cop" is my COD. It was a suicide.
>
How many people died at the hands of police that complied instantly and
completely with their orders?
Gunner Asch
Dec 5, 2014, 10:50:15 AM12/5/14
to
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:24:04 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:
>Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
>Subject: Re: OT: WTF do grand juries do, anyway?
>Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:24:04 -0500
>Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>Lines: 22
>Message-ID: <m5sbli$6ll$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
>References: <41d86130-a44a-4438...@googlegroups.com> <gie08a18almnrsji0...@4ax.com> <82609d1e-2bf3-4356...@googlegroups.com> <m5q0tl$mj6$4...@speranza.aioe.org> <sh628ahnn3qahm9te...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tjhclcbtMwJU2VDFvxKRPw.user.speranza.aioe.org
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
>X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
>Bytes: 1932
>Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com rec.crafts.metalworking:1514204
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
wrote:
>Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
>Subject: Re: OT: WTF do grand juries do, anyway?
>Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:24:04 -0500
>Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>Lines: 22
>Message-ID: <m5sbli$6ll$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
>References: <41d86130-a44a-4438...@googlegroups.com> <gie08a18almnrsji0...@4ax.com> <82609d1e-2bf3-4356...@googlegroups.com> <m5q0tl$mj6$4...@speranza.aioe.org> <sh628ahnn3qahm9te...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tjhclcbtMwJU2VDFvxKRPw.user.speranza.aioe.org
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
>X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
>Bytes: 1932
>Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com rec.crafts.metalworking:1514204
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke
Richard
Dec 5, 2014, 11:52:18 AM12/5/14
to
For instance the three civil rights workers in Mississippi. ;)
But your point is well made.
Resisting arrest is a valid reason to escalate the level of force.
Ed Huntress
Dec 5, 2014, 12:00:48 PM12/5/14
to
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:51:33 -0600, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
But not to violate NYPD rules nor to use excessive force.
Those cops are going down on federal charges, much like what happened
to a NYC cop in 1993.
BTW, the violation was over less than 10 cents of state excise taxes.
You have to be a real Nazi to handcuff someone for that. And Staten
Island is full of Nazis, including some of my old relatives.
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
Those cops are going down on federal charges, much like what happened
to a NYC cop in 1993.
BTW, the violation was over less than 10 cents of state excise taxes.
You have to be a real Nazi to handcuff someone for that. And Staten
Island is full of Nazis, including some of my old relatives.
--
Ed Huntress
Tom Gardner
Dec 5, 2014, 1:48:38 PM12/5/14
to
had to comply and he would be alive today...tragic! Cops make mistakes
and often have "issues" with certain groups of people. I wouldn't take
the chance the the cops arresting me don't have a "thing" for old guys,
I would just do what they say and hopefully they don't harm me. Or, I
could be in the right,DEAD right. That's the thing when dealing with
imperfect creatures.
Tom Gardner
Dec 5, 2014, 1:50:27 PM12/5/14
to
On 12/5/2014 10:50 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:24:04 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Path:
>>
From: Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:24:04 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Path:
>>
WTF?
Ed Huntress
Dec 5, 2014, 2:02:23 PM12/5/14
to
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:48:35 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
True. But dealing with confrontations like that are a part of a cop's
job. If Garner was a sterling citizen, he wouldn't have run that
little chiseling cigarette deal in the first place. But for God's
sake, keep the "offense" in perspective. The single-cigarette ban is
really a political posture to begin with, and a 10-cent violation is
the only evidence they had.
> Cops make mistakes
>and often have "issues" with certain groups of people. I wouldn't take
>the chance the the cops arresting me don't have a "thing" for old guys,
>I would just do what they say and hopefully they don't harm me.
But you aren't the average dude running a gig like that on a street
corner. We have to expect cops to handle that kind of thing without
killing somebody.
I'm not saying that the cop intentionally strangled the guy to death.
What I am saying is that this is a case that needs an adversarial
trial -- two real lawyers, rules of evidence, and cross-examination. A
trial jury should be the one to decide guilt or innocence. In this
case, it really was the one-sidedness of a grand jury, with a
prosecutor whose entire job depends of cooperation from cops. They
almost never get an indictment against a cop for that reason.
> Or, I
>could be in the right,DEAD right. That's the thing when dealing with
>imperfect creatures.
Well, you saw the video. You probably recognize that the evidence and
testimonies need a real airing. It isn't a left or right issue. Hell,
even that wacko Glen Beck says that not bringing it to trial is a
travesty.
A federal trial will be far more favorable to the cops, because
proving a civil rights case is very hard. But it will be better than
nothing.
--
Ed Huntress
job. If Garner was a sterling citizen, he wouldn't have run that
little chiseling cigarette deal in the first place. But for God's
sake, keep the "offense" in perspective. The single-cigarette ban is
really a political posture to begin with, and a 10-cent violation is
the only evidence they had.
> Cops make mistakes
>and often have "issues" with certain groups of people. I wouldn't take
>the chance the the cops arresting me don't have a "thing" for old guys,
>I would just do what they say and hopefully they don't harm me.
corner. We have to expect cops to handle that kind of thing without
killing somebody.
I'm not saying that the cop intentionally strangled the guy to death.
What I am saying is that this is a case that needs an adversarial
trial -- two real lawyers, rules of evidence, and cross-examination. A
trial jury should be the one to decide guilt or innocence. In this
case, it really was the one-sidedness of a grand jury, with a
prosecutor whose entire job depends of cooperation from cops. They
almost never get an indictment against a cop for that reason.
> Or, I
>could be in the right,DEAD right. That's the thing when dealing with
>imperfect creatures.
testimonies need a real airing. It isn't a left or right issue. Hell,
even that wacko Glen Beck says that not bringing it to trial is a
travesty.
A federal trial will be far more favorable to the cops, because
proving a civil rights case is very hard. But it will be better than
nothing.
--
Ed Huntress
mog...@hotmail.com
Dec 5, 2014, 3:23:13 PM12/5/14
to
- show quoted text -
> But not to violate NYPD rules nor to use excessive force.
> Those cops are going down on federal charges, much like what happened
> to a NYC cop in 1993.
>
> BTW, the violation was over less than 10 > cents of state excise taxes.
> You have to be a real Nazi to handcuff someone for that. And Staten
> Island is full of Nazis, including some of my old relatives.
Because of the partiality in ťhat far-right area of NYC that is normally expected towards north and eastern Mediterranean oriented culture, I wouldn't describe Staten Island with such a World-War Two'ish term. Far-right is probably the best way to say it.
> But not to violate NYPD rules nor to use excessive force.
> Those cops are going down on federal charges, much like what happened
> to a NYC cop in 1993.
>
> BTW, the violation was over less than 10 > cents of state excise taxes.
> You have to be a real Nazi to handcuff someone for that. And Staten
> Island is full of Nazis, including some of my old relatives.
Ed Huntress
Dec 5, 2014, 4:46:02 PM12/5/14
to
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:23:10 -0800 (PST), mog...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:51:33 -0600, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>- show quoted text -
>
>> But not to violate NYPD rules nor to use excessive force.
>
>> Those cops are going down on federal charges, much like what happened
>> to a NYC cop in 1993.
>>
>> BTW, the violation was over less than 10 > cents of state excise taxes.
>> You have to be a real Nazi to handcuff someone for that. And Staten
>> Island is full of Nazis, including some of my old relatives.
>
>Because of the partiality in ?hat far-right area of NYC that is normally expected towards north and eastern Mediterranean oriented culture, I wouldn't describe Staten Island with such a World-War Two'ish term. Far-right is probably the best way to say it.
>Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:51:33 -0600, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>- show quoted text -
>
>> But not to violate NYPD rules nor to use excessive force.
>
>> Those cops are going down on federal charges, much like what happened
>> to a NYC cop in 1993.
>>
>> BTW, the violation was over less than 10 > cents of state excise taxes.
>> You have to be a real Nazi to handcuff someone for that. And Staten
>> Island is full of Nazis, including some of my old relatives.
>
Think "Soup Nazi." That's Staten Island cops.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
Dec 5, 2014, 4:56:26 PM12/5/14
to
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:50:24 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:
>On 12/5/2014 10:50 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:24:04 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Path:
>>>
>From: Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>
>WTF?
Shrug.
>On 12/5/2014 10:50 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:24:04 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Path:
>>>
>From: Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
>
>WTF?
Tom Gardner
Dec 5, 2014, 6:52:32 PM12/5/14
to
resisting arrest. How the cops ever thought of arresting him is beyond
me. But, the fact that he's Black, he should have known NOT to escalate
the situation or give the cops any reason to escalate their responses.
In all fairness the cops looked like toy dolls compared to this guy,
they were probably very frightened, a response that Garner was probably
used to. I still mostly blame Garner because he could have prevented
the whole situation. Now, he's dead, his family is fucked and the cops'
lives are fucked too.
Larry Jaques
Dec 5, 2014, 9:56:48 PM12/5/14
to
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 18:52:28 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:
>To keep perspective, Garner's offense wasn't selling cigs, it was
>resisting arrest. How the cops ever thought of arresting him is beyond
>me.
Listening to his "defense", Garner said the cop kept harassing him.
This means, to me, that he was in their faces time and time again,
flirting with the line between OK and illegal. Cops are usually
brought in by complaints. Then again, the little cop with the D.D. on
his shirt and all the tacks over his arms and neck was a bit weird
from the get-go. What a fiasco. I wonder what kind of riot we're
going to get when the autopsy comes out. "Lying whitey, he couldn't
have had a bad heart! Burn, baby, burn!" <sigh>
>But, the fact that he's Black, he should have known NOT to escalate
>the situation or give the cops any reason to escalate their responses.
AbsoFREAKIN'lutely.
>In all fairness the cops looked like toy dolls compared to this guy,
>they were probably very frightened, a response that Garner was probably
>used to. I still mostly blame Garner because he could have prevented
>the whole situation. Now, he's dead, his family is fucked and the cops'
>lives are fucked too.
You're 4 for 4.
wrote:
>To keep perspective, Garner's offense wasn't selling cigs, it was
>resisting arrest. How the cops ever thought of arresting him is beyond
>me.
This means, to me, that he was in their faces time and time again,
flirting with the line between OK and illegal. Cops are usually
brought in by complaints. Then again, the little cop with the D.D. on
his shirt and all the tacks over his arms and neck was a bit weird
from the get-go. What a fiasco. I wonder what kind of riot we're
going to get when the autopsy comes out. "Lying whitey, he couldn't
have had a bad heart! Burn, baby, burn!" <sigh>
>But, the fact that he's Black, he should have known NOT to escalate
>the situation or give the cops any reason to escalate their responses.
>In all fairness the cops looked like toy dolls compared to this guy,
>they were probably very frightened, a response that Garner was probably
>used to. I still mostly blame Garner because he could have prevented
>the whole situation. Now, he's dead, his family is fucked and the cops'
>lives are fucked too.
Tom Gardner
Dec 6, 2014, 6:06:50 AM12/6/14
to
On 12/5/2014 9:57 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> You're 4 for 4.
>
> --
Leftists don't think so. They want no laws to contain their will.
>
> You're 4 for 4.
>
> --
mog...@hotmail.com
Dec 6, 2014, 10:45:38 AM12/6/14
to
On Friday, December 5, 2014 6:52:32 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>How the cops ever thought of arresting him is beyond
> me. But, the fact that he's Black, he should have known NOT to escalate
> the situation or give the cops any reason to escalate their responses.
>
> In all fairness the cops looked like toy dolls compared to this guy,
> they were probably very frightened, a response that Garner was probably
> used to. I still mostly blame Garner because he could have prevented
> the whole situation. Now, he's dead, his family is fucked and the cops'
> lives are fucked too.
But look at it from a "good republican" standpoint, at least the cigarettes were bought and at *least* big tobacco made a profit.
>
>How the cops ever thought of arresting him is beyond
> me. But, the fact that he's Black, he should have known NOT to escalate
> the situation or give the cops any reason to escalate their responses.
>
> In all fairness the cops looked like toy dolls compared to this guy,
> they were probably very frightened, a response that Garner was probably
> used to. I still mostly blame Garner because he could have prevented
> the whole situation. Now, he's dead, his family is fucked and the cops'
> lives are fucked too.
(that helps repub campaign contributions for your friends, right Tom?)
Tom Gardner
Dec 7, 2014, 10:48:38 PM12/7/14
to
over by radical fringe leftists. Are you one?
Gunner Asch
Dec 7, 2014, 11:59:06 PM12/7/14
to
On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:48:33 -0500, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:
I TOO am a registered Democrat and hardly a Leftist.
Reading my posts really pisses off the Leftists and causes other
Democrats to raise their foreheads quite high.
<Grin>
Gunner
wrote:
Reading my posts really pisses off the Leftists and causes other
Democrats to raise their foreheads quite high.
<Grin>
Gunner
0 new messages