neverleft wrote:

Wait CCN piece has more detail about the NYPD and choke holds.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/opinion ... dows/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

It was banned...

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Read the ME report rather than your own view of a video that shows only a portion of the event.

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
When you die Monroe, I'm sure stupidity will be a contributing factor to your death but not a cause of it. Better learn the difference today. Good job, by the way, of me totally falsifying your claim of police only using a chokehold to bring him down and not acknowledging it. Were you on the grand jury?

I did. The ME said the cause of death was the chokehold. Do you have a bank account? Can you pm the number so I can transfer some money to you so you can attend elementary school.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
What really would be expected to do the officer in, though, was the illegal choke hold. Anyone that spent more time reading the info on this care to comment?

CNN experts were just saying the choke hold is not illegal in NYC. It is not recommended to be used but it not illegal.

devilsadvocate wrote:
What really would be expected to do the officer in, though, was the illegal choke hold. Anyone that spent more time reading the info on this care to comment?

Monroe wrote:
Read the ME report rather than your own view of a video that shows only a portion of the event.

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
When you die Monroe, I'm sure stupidity will be a contributing factor to your death but not a cause of it. Better learn the difference today. Good job, by the way, of me totally falsifying your claim of police only using a chokehold to bring him down and not acknowledging it. Were you on the grand jury?

JCMan8 wrote:
Here is another very puzzling aspect of the Garner case someone may have more insight on.

"Other officers seen on the video restraining Garner on the ground were given immunity in return for their testimony, WCBS 880?s Irene Cornell reported."

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/0 ... ic-garner-chokehold-case/

Why should all other cops receive immunity? I can't imagine such an analogy with civilians. Either everyone else gets charged with some kind of accomplice crime, or no crime at all. Certainly not some kind of preemptive immunity.

vindication15 wrote:
When you die Monroe, I'm sure stupidity will be a contributing factor to your death but not a cause of it. Better learn the difference today. Good job, by the way, of me totally falsifying your claim of police only using a chokehold to bring him down and not acknowledging it. Were you on the grand jury?

Monroe wrote:
Wrong. The ME stated that his obesity and his asthma were contributing factors to his death. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Still, the cop in the Eric Garner case should have been indicted. That one's a little f*cked up. Gotta scratch the head at this one.

Agreed, there's a video and it's pretty bad for the officers. Won't see me defending this one.

The fact remains that looting and rioting should not be tolerated under any circumstances, and that most of the Mike Brown supporters wouldn't care about that violent thug if he wasn't black. Further, while police treatment has been a problem for the black community, black on black crime is far far worse for their community, yet you don't see anyone protesting that.

However, I'd love to know why the Garner cop wasn't indicted with this clear video evidence. With Brown it was because all the forensic evidence supported Officer Wilson. Given the video here, what's the reason for Garner?

Monroe wrote:
Agreed-my only objection was listing 'homicide' originally, because that doesn't necessarily point to culpability of the police as far as the legality of their actions.

You'd think after being arrested 30X Garner would have decided not to resist, rather than say 'This ends here' when he refuses the legal request of the officers and resists arrest.

Monroe wrote:
A guy with a Glock kicks in your front door, assaults your kid, and has a gun to your wife's head. You pull out your legal gun and get off a great kill shot to his head.

You've committed homicide.

It just means the killing of one human being by another.

Monroe wrote:
You don't understand the meaning of the word 'homicide'. Every killing of another human being is considered one, regardless of the legality.

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Thank god people like Zulu Gadaffi are taking a proactive approach to all this.
5k reward for Darren Wilson's location.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6184710

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Ok, apparently I'm not being clear enough or you're being deliberately obtuse. Or perhaps I'm assuming too much of non-lawyers, though I note that other lay people are getting it. The job of the prosecution, in prosecuting a case, is to prove every element of the crime being alleged. That is it. If they have done that, then they win. If they fail in that, then they lose. The elements we're discussing were never in doubt or question. There is little point in testing forensics on the gun when everyone at the scene says "yeah, DW shot him." There is no point in testing the blood when everyone agrees that it was MB's. I have absolutely no idea what you think that would have accomplished. You say it is atypical, but this wasn't remotely a typical case. The only real question that was at play was whether DW was being attacked by MB. That is all. None of what you raised in any way addressed that.

I have provided quotes from law enforcement backing up the fact which is patently clear: The Ferguson Police Department acted improperly after the incident. They did not follow protocol.

I don?t know what lawyer you are, but I?m assuming real estate. Claiming to be a lawyer doesn't mean that you know every alley of law. My neighbor is a lawyer that works with the police and he was stating that almost nothing the Ferguson department did was proper procedure.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
He should not have been indicted because no one in their right mind believes that there was probable cause to believe that the alleged crime was committed and because a jury agreed. The prosecutor behaved in an appropriate manner given the circumstances - he presented all of the evidence to a grand jury and allowed them to make a determination. They decided against indictment, which is entirely predictable and even the MB family legal team expected it.

I?ll defer to lawyers on this? The National Bar Association, the nation's largest organization of African-American lawyers, sounded off on the prosecutor not doing his job.

?When you think about a grand jury process, that process is not a jury trial. It is an audience for ? similar to the preliminary hearing before the judge, is an audience for the prosecutor to present a case that says ?we believe is worthy of indictment, here?s the evidence that proves that.? And it?s a solid airtight case because the evidence is really controlled by the prosecutor. That?s not to say that the grand jury can?t ask for witnesses or ask questions, but typically the prosecutor controls the process. Typically a defendant doesn?t testify in that proceeding because the prosecutor?s main goal as the advocate for the state is to administer justice and to get a charge, otherwise he wouldn?t be bringing it before the grand jury.?

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
I don't understand, why do you comment on these matters, particularly with such assurance, when you have NO IDEA what is going on? The prosecutor in this case was putting the question to the grand jury. The prosecutor, seeking to balance the interests of the state in avoiding a pointless trial and not pissing off the police, on one hand, and giving MB a fair and complete chance at justice, INTELLIGENTLY, decided to present all of the evidence. How does this make anything other that total sense?

FYI - as an ethical matter, prosecutors are not supposed to charge people with crimes they don't believe they committed. This is actually a pretty smart way around that issue for a prosecutor that, like most other lawyers, realized that it was bullsh!t. And it was BS, which is, of course, why neither this verdict nor the George Zimmerman verdict was a surprise to anyone in the legal community.

I have quotes from numerous lawyers in this thread discounting everything you are writing. To claim I have ?NO IDEA? what is going is exceptionally ironic.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
New day, same circle jerks...tough to get any point across when the blood rushes to their other heads...but I'd say. Right or wrong, the Ferguson verdict was due process. Dragging DW into court on a charge of killing MB - simply isn't going to happen. Move on. Debate over.

What the debate should be - is what SHOULD happen in the next case like this.

We all know what should happen next time. Violent robber attacks the cop and tries to steal his gun = receives justice at the barrel of a gun.

The one positive that has resulted is there is more of a push for police body cameras, so the next Mike Brown will be caught on tape.

You?re right. The cops are always telling the truth and black kids just get justice from the barrel of the gun?

?Before I could even get out of my car he jumped out, stared at me, and as I jumped out of my car and identified myself, as I approached him, he jumped head-first back into his car ? he jumped out of the car. I saw something black in his hands.?

That isn't Darren Wilson. That's Sean Groubert, a South Carolina police officer.

Trouble for him, though: The dashboard camera shows him shooting an unarmed man who is not jumping and did not have anything black in his hands. The officer is now facing 20 years in prison.

But, let?s remember, Brown was a scary demon super-negro acting like Hulk Hogan and treating the cop like a 5 year old. He?s not a racist at all.

Besides, he works at a police department that is completely on top of things.

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Are you seriously denying that it is not in the realm of possibility?

No, I am seriously denying that it IS in the realm of possibility. Check your grammar.

Why on earth would a police officer's family member be at the scene? To bring him donuts during his shift? What kind of nonsense is that?

Would you like to talk about the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny next?

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Are you seriously denying that it is not in the realm of possibility?

Old-Skool-JC wrote:
Are you seriously denying that it is not in the realm of possibility?