PDA

View Full Version : Maybe not just guns to blame?


Pages : [1] 2

John Hill
4th Dec 2014, 00:42
A Staten Island grand jury declined to bring charges in the case of Eric Garner, an African American who died this summer after a white New York City police officer placed him in an apparent chokehold during an arrest. As protesters began gathering in the city, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a federal investigation “would now move forward.



No charges for NYPD officer in apparent chokehold death; Justice Dept. to investigate - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/03/a-grand-jury-vote-in-new-york-police-involved-chokehold-case-could-come-soon/)

So selling matches is now a capital offence in the '... the land of the free and the home of the brave'?

Boudreaux Bob
4th Dec 2014, 01:06
JH,

Out West we have a saying that fits you.....

"Don't worry about bitin' off more than you can chew, your mouth is a whole lot bigger'n than you think."

The Sultan
4th Dec 2014, 01:11
BB

Your response to JH would warm the heart of the Grand Dragon himself. He is rejoicing that lynching is legal again, just use your arm not a rope.

The Sultan

con-pilot
4th Dec 2014, 01:12
So selling matches is now a capital offence in the

You can't even get that right, so no chance that you can get anything else correct.

John Hill
4th Dec 2014, 01:28
I am so pleased you took the time to read the linked article.

rh200
4th Dec 2014, 01:45
So selling matches is now a capital offence in the '... the land of the free and the home of the brave'?

A typical emotive response by the left with no basis in reality.

If you wanted to have some credibility you would go something like this.

So resisting arrest is now a capital offense.

One wonders when the left (if) get their socialist paradise how they are going to enforce their views when they have neutered the police force.

Lets see, over here we have, physical training, capsicum spray, tasers and fire arms as tools.

The response of the left is to always criticizes when the officer uses one of those methods, if it goes wrong, why didn't you use xyz. What do you expect police to do, use harsh language, opps can't do that as they might be insulted.

Oh thats it, do as your told when the officer asks you. The big bubba resisted arrest and croaked it, tragic, moral of the story is don't resist arrest, regardless of your skin color.

jolihokistix
4th Dec 2014, 02:44
Doesn't mention matches anywhere.
NYPD No. 3's order over loose smokes led to Garner chokehold death - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/wife-man-filmed-chokehold-arrested-article-1.1893790)

galaxy flyer
4th Dec 2014, 03:27
Maybe if the good burghers of NYC and NYS weren't so greedy for tax money, there wouldn't need to crack down a selling "loosies". The base problem is taxation and the vicious enforcement thereof.

GF

con-pilot
4th Dec 2014, 03:28
Doesn't mention matches anywhere.


Hill needs no facts nor uses any facts with his paranoid, never ending US rants.

It is getting a bit tiresome.

If he wishes to discuss aviation matters, I'm all for it, but....

421dog
4th Dec 2014, 03:46
I have him on "ignore".
I recommend it.

con-pilot
4th Dec 2014, 04:04
I have him on "ignore".
I recommend it.

Well I have to admit I've thought about, especially when he lies about me and other people that I don't know nor have ever met.

I’m getting sick and tired of his lies as well. He makes up lies about me and others, yet gets away with it.

Go figure.

There is no Tag Team Trolls. A pure figment of his overactive imagination.

John Hill
4th Dec 2014, 04:07
He makes up lies about me and others, yet gets away with it.

Dont take part in the Tag Team Trolls if you dont like that sort of thing. Meanwhile, it is all in fun, or dont you recall that?

BTW, I dont tell lies about anyone.

galaxy flyer
4th Dec 2014, 04:09
Moving to good news, November was another banner month for gun sales--1.8 million background checks. Something 175,000 checks on Black Friday.

GF

Bronx
4th Dec 2014, 08:42
John Hill's never ending childish anti US rants are juvenile and boring but many posts by the members of the Not a Tag Team are just as bad.

So he made a mistake and said matches when the guy was (allegedly) selling loosies.
Does that mean this tragic death is not worth discussing?

Video of arrest (http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=90051&siteSection=nydailynews-new-york&videoId=26426042)

OFSO
4th Dec 2014, 09:06
I see Barry has rushed into the breach again, whining about relationships between the 'community' and the police.

It would be more to the point if he reminded everyone in the "community" that obeying the orders of the police is usually a Good Thing and just possibly might result in a fewer deaths & injuries - to both perpetrators, sorry, my mistake - to members of the public and to law-enforcement officers.

jolihokistix
4th Dec 2014, 09:11
That video clip and the results of the autopsy show (to me) that it wasn't the choke-hold, but the other cops climbing onto him to hold him down. Plus his asthma. A really, really sad outcome.

In many of these cases, it is a series of little straws, almost insignificant in themselves, that results in someone's death and subsequent huge outpourings of anger against the authorities.

Seldomfitforpurpose
4th Dec 2014, 09:18
Moving to good news, November was another banner month for gun sales--1.8 million background checks. Something 175,000 checks on Black Friday.

GF

Let's hope they are all a bit smarter than this guy :p

2 teens shot by hunter unloading rifle in woods behind Pennsylvania high school | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/26/2-teens-shot-by-hunter-unloading-rifle-in-woods-behind-pennsylvania-high-school/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obinsite)

rh200
4th Dec 2014, 09:46
It would be more to the point if he reminded everyone in the "community" that obeying the orders of the police is usually a Good Thing and just possibly might result in a fewer deaths & injuries - to both perpetrators, sorry, my mistake - to members of the public and to law-enforcement officers.

Funny you should mention that. I was watching the hands up don't shoot protesters and just thinking, "Well if you actually did that it wouldn't happen"

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Dec 2014, 09:59
So resisting arrest is now a capital offense.
It isn't in civilised parts of the world.


Provided that the perp is no immediate threat to life or limb there's no need to seriously damage, let alone kill, them when trying to arrest them, you can pick them up later if that's what it takes.

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Dec 2014, 10:02
It would be more to the point if he reminded everyone in the "community" that obeying the orders of the police is usually a Good Thing and just possibly might result in a fewer deaths & injuries
A society in which everyone obeys police without question, out of fear, regardless of whether what the police are asking is reasonable, legal, or anything else, has a name.


It's called a "police state".


Isn't the second amendment all about citizens being allowed to arm themselves so as to be able to defend themselves against just such repressive government?


So, like I said on the other thread, not enough guns. If this guy had had a gun he could have shot the police and survived.

Mr Chips
4th Dec 2014, 10:17
Yeah, nobody n the UK was ever killed by a police officer during an arrest or a protest were they Gertrude?

(In case anyone is wondering, yes, they were)

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Dec 2014, 11:29
Yeah, nobody n the UK was ever killed by a police officer during an arrest or a protest were they Gertrude?
Yes they were, and this was just as wrong as if it had happened somewhere else.

radeng
4th Dec 2014, 11:42
And, strange to relate - or is it? - no policeman in the UK has ever been convicted and many are never even prosecuted when such a thing happens......

rh200
4th Dec 2014, 12:46
Theres a difference between obey orders with out question and resisting arrest.

Are you seriously saying that its morally justified to resist arrest in a civilized state. I can see that working, who decides what moral level of resistance and for what perceived crime you can do it?

Boudreaux Bob
4th Dec 2014, 12:48
Isn't the second amendment all about citizens being allowed to arm themselves so as to be able to defend themselves against just such repressive government?

No it isn't.

There are "lawful" orders that must be obeyed even in a "Police State".

Our obligation to reject tyrannical government does not envision the Police as being the sort of situation that would invoke that action.

An out of control President or Congress perhaps....but not the Plod going about their daily business of enforcing local and State Law.

If you cannot grasp the difference then you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

What you might consider is the fact the Mayor of New York today is a very flagrant Leftie and is all about enforcing the very Law that led to the arrest of the Dead Guy and now that same Mayor is all upset over the outcome of the Grand Jury decision in the Death of someone who was arrested due to the existence of the Law and the Mayor's insisting it be enforced.

There is a problem you can get your teeth into....morally corrupt Leftie Politicians!

PTT
4th Dec 2014, 13:23
rh200Theres a difference between obey orders with out question and resisting arrest.Police: Do what I tell you!
Citizen: Why? I don't have to.
Police: You're under arrest for obstruction of justice!
Citizen: Erm...
Civil Rights exits stage left...Are you seriously saying that its morally justified to resist arrest in a civilized state.I can certainly see situations where it might be. Civilized is not the same thing as just.

Boudreaux BobOur obligation to reject tyrannical government does not envision the Police as being the sort of situation that would invoke that action.Well that's something of an oversight...What you might consider is the fact the Mayor of New York today is a very flagrant Leftie and is all about enforcing the very Law that led to the arrest of the Dead Guy and now that same Mayor is all upset over the outcome of the Grand Jury decision in the Death of someone who was arrested due to the existence of the Law and the Mayor's insisting it be enforced.Ah, the Nuremberg defence.

The absolute confidence some here seem to have in the police is surprising. They're people too, most of whom will be good and decent people, and some of whom will be corrupt.

BenThere
4th Dec 2014, 14:38
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d9bf059e13&view=fimg&th=14a15a81dde89a5a&attid=0.1&disp=emb&attbid=ANGjdJ9nIRiQPy1LYLxcuJzZ7BF9B7PHygLBsqhBmm7GFatk_Klvh t0W_RGJAjDvHIt33t9bHWtuHgMRv-ZvUaHsnJwNmxjhH1mH2le4gi_IDUz8GWFWIl4D4HiX3P0&sz=w1244-h1658&ats=1417703629871&rm=14a15a81dde89a5a&zw&atsh=1

Says a lot, eh?

chuks
4th Dec 2014, 15:04
As accurate as usual:

1. The man was arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes, not matches. There's some New York City statute that bans the sale of untaxed cigarettes, it seems.

2. According to the autopsy he was not killed by the use of a illegal choke-hold, but from the cumulative effects of being, basically, squashed in a police scrum when already suffering from respiratory and circulatory problems.

I suppose the grand jury found that the police did not mean to kill him, and did not use any illegal means of restraint on him, so that no criminal acts took place even though police actions contributed to his death.

Again, look at the size of the fellow! There you are, trying to restrain a goddam baby whale, out on the streets of New York City, while also trying to hang onto whatever is left of your dignity! One can well imagine that the action became a bit mixed, yes.

Gertrude, your idea has merit, despite its being crashingly stupid, and dangerous to all concerned: you, the general public, and the police alike. It's certainly in line with some extreme interpretations of our 2nd Amendment. I would suggest that you wave a gun around, next time (first time, whatever) that you visit New York City. See if doing that confers freedom from arrest in this "police state" of ours, but "You first," okay?

If the Feds want to investigate further, well, that's their prerogative.

BenThere
4th Dec 2014, 16:14
It's called a "police state".


Not so, Gertrude.

“A liberal paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and only law enforcement has guns.”

“And believe it or not, such a place does, indeed, exist. It’s called prison.”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Maricopa AZ. County Sheriff

I think it becomes a police state when the governed no longer approve the methods and power of those charged with maintaining order. We all, I think, want order, unless we profit from disorder.

The US is closer to an "absence of police-state" than it is to a police state. Which is one reason why acquisition of guns is at its most frenetic where people feel unprotected by police, whether in jurisdictions where the police have been hobbled, like NYC, or those rural areas where police can't practically protect people from human predators.

Capot
4th Dec 2014, 17:39
that obeying the orders of the police is usually a Good Thing and just possibly might result in a fewer deaths & injuriesHmmm.......the citizens of the Soviet Union and its Communist satellites, especially East Germany, were well acquainted with that survival tactic.

A need for instant obedience to the Police, on pain of injury or death for not obeying instantly, tends to go to the heads of the Police who then abuse the power that gives them. Ask any KGB or STASI veteran how it was in the old days.

Careful what you wish for.

BenThere
4th Dec 2014, 18:13
But not exactly, Capot.

Police have to operate in an environment where they represent the authority of the law. If they don't have the backing of majority of those they are policing, problems arise. So long as the people have the authority, preferably through the ballot box, to ultimately control the police, and set their rules, all is good.

One might take note of the next Ferguson, MO elections to see if their police regime is supported or rejected.

I'm intimately familiar with the modern history of Detroit, where in the late sixties, the voters chose to elect a civic regime hostile and non-supportive of the Detroit Police Department's methods and staffing (Democrats). The people were all in favor of that for a while, but the city deteriorated to the point where most anyone who could leave, left, and the once prosperous city fell to ruin.

The parallel is that the mob got what it wanted in Detroit and everyone suffered the consequences. That same process is ongoing in many places where the underclass undermines rule of law over the occasional police misstep, and not being sentient enough to anticipate consequences, makes conditions much, much worse.

As you would rightfully presume, I am grateful for every policeman who puts on the uniform and in good faith tries to keep order and protect us. They're up there with our soldiers in my esteem.

The current controversies are misdirected. The focus should be on urban and mostly black criminal and racist cultures rather than the rare event of heavy-handedness committed by white cops.

OFSO
4th Dec 2014, 18:39
A society in which everyone obeys police without question, out of fear, regardless of whether what the police are asking is reasonable, legal, or anything else, has a name.

Yes, it's an organised disciplined society.

Basis Facts: Society employs certain categories of people to do certain things.

The Fire Department to put out fires, Medics to look after injuries, the Civil Protection Organisation to look after catastrophies (don't think you have them in the UK but many countries including Germany does) and the Police, to maintain public order.

The public hand over responsibility to these people to enable them to perform their tasks, and in return for accepting this, the public must obey orders given by these people.

If you think that when upon being requested by one of these designated authorities to leave a building that's on fire or in danger of collapse, to stay clear of a situation threatening to your health, or where a civil or criminal incident is suspected to remain still, you have the option to debate in your own mind whether it's necessary to comply or not, you are indulging in anarchy, and must not be surprised at the consequences.

I must have been stopped by police twenty or thirty tims in my life - roadside police checkpoints are VERY common where I live - and believe me I would never for an instance have considered NOT to do what the guy in the uniform told me to. Not because he's carrying a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun (which they do) but because he (or she) is The Authority.

That's what members of the US "Community" have trouble getting into their thick skulls, and that's what is responsible for the recent deaths: not police brutality.

419
4th Dec 2014, 18:51
I must have been stopped by police twenty or thirty tims in my life - roadside police checkpoints are VERY common where I live - and believe me I would never for an instance have considered NOT to do what the guy in the uniform told me to. Not because he's carrying a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun (which they do) but because he (or she) is The Authority.

So you do what they ask because you respect their authority which is IMO, the correct reason to follow their orders or requests.
However, this isn't the same thing that Gertrude stated in the comment that you quoted.

A society in which everyone obeys police without question, out of fear, regardless of whether what the police are asking is reasonable, legal, or anything else, has a name.

If you are a law abiding citizen and living in a civilised country then you shouldn't have to fear the police.

OFSO
4th Dec 2014, 18:57
this isn't the same thing that Gertrude stated in the comment that you quoted.


True, but then I've never had occasion to fear the police. Yes they do make mistakes (witness the student who lost an eye in Barcelona during riots this year - poor training in use of baton rounds or plastic rounds) but me personally ? No.

Incidently here in Spain it's often drunken male British and French tourists who receive a drubbing when being insolent to the police.

BabyBear
4th Dec 2014, 19:48
Big fella for sure, however the sum of the cops would be significantly greater. Looked to me as if the cops were possibly a little over zealous and all wanted a piece of the action, resulting in an overkill in the force necessary.

I don't know the technicalities, but there's resisting arrest resisting arrest. Looked to me this fella only got as far as strongly objecting to his arrest. Didn't seem like he was striking out and endangering cops in his attempt to resist arrest.

How come there were so many cops present to deal with a two bit crime in such a strong armed way?

The death aside questions about policing need asking.

BB

BenThere
4th Dec 2014, 20:31
I get what you're saying, BabyBear, but we don't want a fair fight, do we? We want the police to have the resources to bring overwhelming power to any confrontation.

In the New York situation, the minor infraction (do you think that as the perp was facilitating the perceived crime of smoking had anything to do with the zeal of the men in blue?) would have been easily managed had the violator done the right thing and not resisted the police by flaying his hands at the arresting officer. Actually, knowing that he had an asthmatic condition you would think he would have been even more compliant, knowing the risk he would face if it came to a physical contest, but he didn't see that risk at the time, apparently.

If you want to ask me questions about police, I'm happy to answer.

I'm all for the police profiling for bad people, using technology to interfere with crime and violence, and I can accept the rare incidence of a white cop interfering with the malevolent enterprises of a black criminal, the most likely scenario in my neighborhood.

con-pilot
4th Dec 2014, 20:42
Big fella for sure, however the sum of the cops would be significantly greater. Looked to me as if the cops were possibly a little over zealous and all wanted a piece of the action, resulting in an overkill in the force necessary.


Actually, the theory of overwhelming force against a suspect, is to avoid the use of lethal force. To force the suspect to the ground, subdue the suspect and place them in restrains, thereby removing any danger from themselves and the public at large.

I suspect that you have never worked in law enforcement, yes?

OFSO
4th Dec 2014, 20:53
What the world needs is more non-lethal weapons which do no harm physically but which install such terror in the victim that he or she submits instantly. Something like a large-bore gas-powered gun which shoots Brussels Sprouts would be useful in a significant percentage of cases.
Large magazine, auto feed.

Boudreaux Bob
4th Dec 2014, 20:54
For a bit of perspective about these evil Po-Leece we have in our Country.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlEYlAklArE

PTT
4th Dec 2014, 21:46
So I watched the video (or what I could find) and am left wondering why they were trying to touch him at all.
not resisted the police by flaying his hands at the arresting officerHe wasn't. He was pulling his hands away and was in no way threatening.
the theory of overwhelming force against a suspect, is to avoid the use of lethal forceYeah, that went well...

Boudreaux Bob
4th Dec 2014, 22:01
While arresting a fellow on a Warrant for ADWIK (Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill) which is a very serious Felony Charge, he elected not to go along in a peaceful manner.

I punched him very firmly in his Solar Plexus with a closed fist punch....and dropped him in his Tracks.

After I got him handcuffed and breathing again he told me he was recuperating from Heart Surgery.

It very easily could have killed him and if I had known of his Surgery I would not have hit him as I did.

When the fight starts and you do not have any fore knowledge of the Suspect's Medical History....bad things can happen.

We have had folks die of Heart Attacks while resisting Arrest....so who is at fault there?

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Dec 2014, 22:39
Our obligation to reject tyrannical government does not envision the Police as being the sort of situation that would invoke that action.

Got that one wrong then, didn't you, as seems to be reported daily in the news these days.

Boudreaux Bob
4th Dec 2014, 23:31
Gertrude,

You base your opinion of Life in the United States by what the American Media outside FOX News has to say? I suppose you think BBC is pushing a Right Wing Agenda do you as the Beeb is slightly right of the American Media.:rolleyes:

BabyBear
4th Dec 2014, 23:38
A few responses to my last post, rather than go through them one by one:

I have never worked in law enforcement.

I do not see the crime as being serious enough to warrant so much police attention.

I accept and agree whatever force is required to protect themselves and the public is justified. To claim the public were being threatened is a non starter and as far as such serious threat to the police to warrant the action is concerned. Sorry grabbing at straws.

Why were so many police there, were they called or just on hand? Whichever it looks as if a change of management is required.

The level of police intervention was unnecessary as far as I could see. It appeared there was no procedure to it, no co-ordination, no planning, just a free for all. I find it hard to accept there aren't/couldn't be procedures for exactly this daily occurrence.

Who gives consideration to health issues they have when 'spirits' are high? Not many people I know. Why should a guy with asthma be expected to take it in to account yet someone recovering from heart surgery doesn't?

To use an analogy of arresting an individual accused of Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill in attempting to deem this death as acceptable is such a poor argument it adds weight to the victims case.

I try my hardest to be objective. My observations here are that irrespective of the case being discussed there are many who will blindly support the police without question. To do so is to say they do no wrong and are free from human failures, which is naive.

I say the above from a position of giving the police the benefit of the doubt in marginal situations.

BB

rh200
4th Dec 2014, 23:56
I can certainly see situations where it might be. Civilized is not the same thing as just.

PTT, I see you didn't actually address the issue of who gets to decide they are moral gods and can decide when its correct to resist arrest. To be honest its the usual [email protected] sprouted by the left to justify bad behavior.

In a civilized society, if the police want to arrest you, they can. You then lodge a complaint, sue them etc. Under your moral compass then any Tom, Dick and Harry, can pull a gun and resit arrest, because they think they are morally justified.

The simple fact is the the left when they undergo bad behavior and resist arrest, are no different philosophically to any other group who thinks they are morally justified in what they are doing.

Its simple, a civilized society you follow the rules and system, and use the laws we have.

What I sometimes think should happen, is all law inforcement should go on strike for a week. They should do it with an absolute guarantee they won't intervene no matter what, and couple that with a guarantee they won't investigate what happens in the week they are away, after they come back.

Once a few of the huggy fluffys, wives, mothers, daughters etc are subjected to a bit of the old, "in out" treatment, they might have a different outlook on society and police.

con-pilot
5th Dec 2014, 00:25
Bottom of this entire tragic incident, was the Mayor's demanding that the police crackdown on the illegal (tax free) selling cigarettes*. Otherwise the police would have left him alone, like they had for years.

That is what the media should be concentrating on, but, the mayor is a very progressive, so-called liberal Democrat, in other words, a hero to the media and therefore can do no wrong.




* From what some friends of mine that live in New York City have told me, that the fastest growing cottage industry in New York City is smuggling in cigarettes from surrounding states. A pack of cigarettes in NYC cost $15.00. A pack of cigarettes in New Jersey can be bought as low as $5.75 for off brands. So drive to Jersey, fill yer trunk (boot) with cartons of cigarettes and Bob’s yer uncle. But if stopped by the police, obey them and do not resist. Then tell them all the cigarettes are yours, as you are a real heavy smoker.Beer

Bronx
5th Dec 2014, 00:38
Your friends are right.

60% of the cigarettes sold in New York are 'smuggled'.

Boudreaux Bob
5th Dec 2014, 01:55
To use an analogy of arresting an individual accused of Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill in attempting to deem this death as acceptable is such a poor argument it adds weight to the victims case.

Quit using your Belly Button for a Peep Hole!

It could have been for Jay Walking or Double Hibachery I was arresting him for as it matters not. What matters is his unknown medical condition that is the issue.

That is exactly the situation as happened in New York if you stop and actually think about it for two seconds.

The Cops did not know of the guy's Asthma problems.

You ever have first hand experience with someone who has had a serious Asthma attack during periods of high stress and physical exertion?

galaxy flyer
5th Dec 2014, 02:08
A society in which everyone obeys police without question, out of fear, regardless of whether what the police are asking is reasonable, legal, or anything else, has a name.

Yes, it's an organised disciplined society.

Basis Facts: Society employs certain categories of people to do certain things.

The Fire Department to put out fires, Medics to look after injuries, the Civil Protection Organisation to look after catastrophies (don't think you have them in the UK but many countries including Germany does) and the Police, to maintain public order.

The public hand over responsibility to these people to enable them to perform their tasks, and in return for accepting this, the public must obey orders given by these people.

If you think that when upon being requested by one of these designated authorities to leave a building that's on fire or in danger of collapse, to stay clear of a situation threatening to your health, or where a civil or criminal incident is suspected to remain still, you have the option to debate in your own mind whether it's necessary to comply or not, you are indulging in anarchy, and must not be surprised at the consequences.

I must have been stopped by police twenty or thirty tims in my life - roadside police checkpoints are VERY common where I live - and believe me I would never for an instance have considered NOT to do what the guy in the uniform told me to. Not because he's carrying a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun (which they do) but because he (or she) is The Authority.

That's what members of the US "Community" have trouble getting into their thick skulls, and that's what is responsible for the recent deaths: not police brutality.

OFSO,

I don't follow their direction by rote obedience; I follow it because I look the situation over, listen to their direction and decide for myself. For example, I speed by a police officer, noting my speed and his pulling out onto the highway. I recognize I was violating the law, I can either pull over or face greater fines punishment, so I stop. I stop not out of blind obedience in deference to authority but because being shot or imprisoned is more painful than stopping.

In a less coercive setting, I only obey when my understanding of the situation makes me decide that obeying is to my advantage. For example, ATC clearance is issued, if I don't think it is in my interest to accept, I ask for what I want. "XXX, Descend to F310". "Request pilot discretion on the descent, XXX". "I need you down now". OK, I'm thinking, not descending might lead to either a mid-air or certificate action, either of which is more painful than just engaging V/S at 1000 fpm and waiting for any further requests from the ATCO. "XXX, Beginning the descent now to F310."

All that said, I follow society's rules, mostly because living outside the law is more painful than not. Maybe, I am an anarchist.

GF

rh200
5th Dec 2014, 02:14
You ever have first hand experience with someone who has had a serious Asthma attack during periods of high stress and physical exertion?

Actually a good question to ask for people with experience in such matters are the following.

When you restrain people by force, how many of them try the old, "stop it I can't breath, stop it your hurting me, stop it your breaking my ..." trick?

obgraham
5th Dec 2014, 04:29
Though I do not believe the police should use the so-called "choke hold" these days (they have plenty of other weapons to subdue the resistant), there is the small matter, usually ignored by the media:

The man had a record of over 30 arrests. Many for resisting arrest.

Explains why when they decided to arrest him, a bunch of cops showed up.

jolihokistix
5th Dec 2014, 05:33
As with the 12-yr-old who was shot carrying a 'gun', it was a member of the public who phoned in and made a complaint. This rather obliges the cops to act, I suspect.

In this case someone phoned in to report a fight, and to mention it was somehow related to this guy, who then protests in outrage that it was he who actually broke it up. The caller knew his name somehow and mentioned how he and others had been hanging around there for the past three years selling loosies and spliffs.

In the case of an alleged fight, I can see why so many cops turned up.

Krystal n chips
5th Dec 2014, 06:27
Purely for balance, here's the UK's current offering.....West Mids. "not so finest or brightest" engaging in their version of community relations....

BBC News - University of Warwick protest: 'Excessive force' claims investigated (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-30325135)

No nasty things that go bang....thankfully.....but the happy crackle of a Taser can be heard in lieu.....

rh200
5th Dec 2014, 07:01
The police take down how many people a day without any hassels!

As for a taser, they have had issue with people croaking it.

chuks
5th Dec 2014, 07:37
This thread led off with news about "an apparent choke-hold" leading to the death of Mr Garner. Well, the local rag now has the man "Zu tode gewürgt," (choked to death), leaving out any doubt about how he died, that he might have been taken down with an arm around the throat, the "apparent choke-hold," but then released once he was under a big pile of policemen. No, the poor man simply had to have been choked to death, when the state did not do anything much about that. Otherwise, what is there to protest about, the unfortunate death of a man who died resisting arrest: a homicide but not a wrongful act? That is to say, for those of us a bit slow of thought, when a cop shoots and kills an armed robber, say, that's a homicide, but a lawful homicide. The fact of Mr Garner's death by homicide does not automatically make him the victim of a crime.

Something doesn't add up: How is someone being "choked to death" able to speak, as Mr Garner did? Try that one at home to see what I mean. (Tell the person putting the hold on you not to let go until you start complaining in the style of Mr Garner, just to make sure you get this one right.)

The best part of this, so far, is that shot of Mrs Garner collapsing into the arms of, yes, the Reverend Al Sharpton! I looked and looked, but I couldn't see Tawana Brawley anywhere in that image, the last victim of the NYPD that the Reverend Al had been supporting. Oh well ... one cannot get everything one wishes for.

PTT
5th Dec 2014, 08:13
rh200I see you didn't actually address the issue of who gets to decide they are moral gods and can decide when its correct to resist arrest.You didn't ask, and for me it's a complex question with far more nuance to it than can be added to a forum post. It seems it's a very simple question for you, though.
In a civilized society, if the police want to arrest you, they can. You then lodge a complaint, sue them etc. Under your moral compass then any Tom, Dick and Harry, can pull a gun and resit arrest, because they think they are morally justified.First, don't tell me what my "moral compass" is and don't strawman. Second, your "civilised society" is utopian in that it assumes you are around to lodge said complaint afterwards. That's not always the case. The decision to arrest rests on a single police officer, and he is not always right, and sometimes may not be acting in the interests of lawfulness. According to you that decision rests solely with that police officer and I have no say as to whether the arrest happens. I disagree: if I can convince him not to arrest then I will do so.
Its simple, a civilized society you follow the rules and system, and use the laws we have.That's what they said in East Germany...

BTW, that's called an authoritarian society, not a civilised one.

BabyBear
5th Dec 2014, 08:20
Its simple, a civilized society you follow the rules and system, and use the laws we have.

In usual form there is an assumption the cops are never less than 100% civilised.

I can guarantee you they are not.

BB

chuks
5th Dec 2014, 08:39
PTT, you are able to convince policemen not to arrest you? How?

Ah, by the use of the Force! "These are not the droids you are looking for." Works every time, eh? Just be careful with that light saber of yours, though. That thing could put someone's eye out.

Lemme see .... The last time I convinced a policeman not to arrest me I did the following:

Pulled over in a safe place to stop.

Shut off the engine.

Put down the window.

Remained seated in my vehicle.

Kept my hands in sight.

Handed over the license and registration as requested.

Politely declined his request to say why I thought he had pulled me over. (Speeding, of course, something like 70 in a 55, downhill in a Land Crusher!) I told him, "Officer, if my lawyer were here, I think he would tell me not to try and guess about that, and I would hate to have to do that."

That was about it, and I got a warning instead of a speeding ticket. Would it have been better to tell him to naff off, that I was tired of being harassed for speeding?

He was just a little Wilmington town cop, not a big old Vermont State Trooper, and he was kind of slow getting out of his cruiser, so I suppose I would have had enough time to run over there and start beating on him, to see if that might make him change his mind about arresting me, but doing that did not cross my mind. What would you have done differently, aside from using the Force?

Have you been following the German news, PTT? As it happens, there is a hot discussion going on right now about whether the DDR, East Germany, was a legitimate state or not. Most politicians seem to hold that it was not, but some politicians from the former East want to argue that it was. Chancellor Merkel went along with the system there, not becoming involved in any protest actions, but President Gauck led protests. (The Chancellor is a powerful figure, a political leader; the President is a ceremonial figure, a moral leader, here in Germany.)

PTT
5th Dec 2014, 09:17
PTT, you are able to convince policemen not to arrest you? How? I did not say that.
There are a wealth of options between absolute acquiescence and violent assault. In your example you used one of them, so thank you for proving my point.
Have you been following the German news, PTT?No.

chuks
5th Dec 2014, 11:16
Post #57 by PTT: "I disagree [about not having a say whether a policeman decides to arrest me]: if I can convince him not to arrest [me] then I will do so." There you certainly do claim some limited ability to convince policemen not to arrest you, which is a pretty cool ability to have, so that I would very much like to know exactly how you do that.

I saw Obi Wan Kenobi do that "convincing" thing of yours, but of course he's a Jedi. Are you also a Jedi, able to use the Force? Probably not, so how does this work, this ability of yours? Is it very different from the ability I showed?

That was not "absolute acquiescence," by the way, what I used. That sort of thing would have seen me babbling stuff such as "Terribly sorry, Officer. I know I was speeding there, but I really didn't mean to. I was distracted, worrying about my poor old mother, you see, and anyway, I was only up to 70 or so, not so very far over the limit .... "

No, actually mine was a very polite version of "I know my rights; I have no obligation whatsoever to help you in your investigation by confirming in my own words exactly what I had done there that was illegal, thus making your job ever so much easier. As in you being able to write: 'The suspect has confirmed in his own words that he had violated the speed limit as posted by at least 15 miles per hour because of his not giving due care and attention to keeping full control of his motor vehicle.'"

God, cops must love people who like to talk, trying to "convince" some stupid cop of how wrong it should be to treat them like some, some criminal! Just keep talking and the big dummy should come around to your point of view eventually! I assumed that policeman was about as intelligent as I was and thus not likely to fall prey to my superior powers of mind. Too, he was the guy with the badge and the gun, yes ....

On the other hand, there was "my lawyer" hovering over us like my Guardian Angel. That "my lawyer" has his practice in far-off Germany, well ... I left that bit out!

It's fair to think that I probably did not convince that cop not to arrest me, but what I might have done was not to convince the cop to arrest me. That's about all I might have done there; I wasn't trying to convince that cop of anything, since I hardly said a word beyond answering his requests.

It's a funny thing, but if I had been able to persuade that cop that I was some sort of conceited rich bastard in a flashy SUV who really did not appreciate having Wilmington town cops wasting my valuable time over nothing much, just violating their piddly traffic laws, then he just might have carted me off to the local hoosegow to wait out the Thanksgiving holidays until the judge could come in on Monday morning to set my bail. German resident driving a Maine-registered vehicle in southern Vermont, a guy with no local ties and thus a flight risk ... definitely a candidate for needing to post some sort of bail, I think. Or do you suppose that policeman would be worried about a suit for false arrest coming from "my lawyer," so that he still would back off and just hand out a warning even if I had managed to annoy him in some way? You know, to give him the good old "Jet Blast" treatment, just for doing his job?

Heck, the way his cruiser was parked, aimed right at my vehicle, I bet he had the whole stop being recorded on video, just in case.

Cops have a lot more discretion than you might think! Another thing is, I got pulled over just that once, when I couldn't remember the last time that happened to me, way back in 1987, I guess. That cop probably pulls over people every day. Who do you think has a better idea of how things might play out in that scenario, him or me?

PTT
5th Dec 2014, 11:26
I make no such claim. It is a conditional: if I can then I will do so. It is not a claim to have done so before or to necessarily be able to do so in future but a simple if-then statement. If the initial condition does not apply then the consequent does not either.

Basic English comprehension failure there, chuks ;)

PTT
5th Dec 2014, 12:09
You're having real issues with comprehension today Chuks. I didn't say your response was "absolute acquiescence". Here's what I said once more:
There are a wealth of options between absolute acquiescence and violent assault. In your example you used one of them, so thank you for proving my point.
First I pointed out that there are options other than the two mentioned. Then I declared that you used one of those options thus proving my point. For that to be valid I cannot reasonably be claiming you were "absolutely acquiescing" since that would not prove my point.

Gertrude the Wombat
5th Dec 2014, 12:33
60% of the cigarettes sold in New York are 'smuggled'.
You don't have a free market of goods and services within the USA?


How does that work then, customs posts on state lines?

Gertrude the Wombat
5th Dec 2014, 12:37
who gets to decide they are moral gods and can decide when its correct to resist arrest
Easy. Everyone.


Anyone has the right to ensure that they're being arrested correctly - dunno about you, but I was taught in school what questions to ask the policeman and to write down the answers (before the days of mobile phones this was, nowadays one would just film them).


And if the attempted arrest turns out to be unlawful one certainly has the right to argue about it and, probably, to use reasonable force to avoid being illegally detained.

Boudreaux Bob
5th Dec 2014, 13:40
Gertie Baby,

You are living in an Alternate Universe if you think using force against a Cop at any point is a good Idea.:ugh:

The smart thing is to do as asked and hope it turns out to be a minor delay and inconvenience rather than an involved experience on how the Criminal Justice System operates.

Resist Arrest or use force to Resist and I can promise you that it will be the Long Course you get and not the Short Course.

Having been a Police Officer I understand how the system works beginning with the initial greeting right up to the time the Jail Cell Door SLAMS shut.

If the Cops err....sue them for lots of Money.

That is the smart move not resisting on the Street as that will only get your Butt beat and bind you to a Long Course experience.

But Lefties don't deal with Reality very well do you?


As to Cigarette Smuggling.....that is an old way of getting rich that the Mafia has taken over in general. Some States used to not tax Tobacco at all, North Carolina being one of them due to its being the leading Tobacco producer in the Country with a small business called Reynolds Tobacco Company residing there.

Ricard J. Reynolds invented the Cigarette making machine that allowed mass production of Cigarettes.

We used to see Truck Loads of Winston, Salem, and Camel Cigarettes headed north where they would have Counterfeit New York Tax Stamps added to the packets.

Don't think for a minute there is any "Free" trade on Cigarettes or anything that the Guvmint taxes heavily.....someone is going to find a way to make money out of it along with the Guvmint.

It would appear that understanding of the way the American system of government is set up escapes most Brits.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Cigarette%20Tax%20Rates.png

PTT
5th Dec 2014, 13:50
The smart thing is to do as asked and hope it turns out to be a minor delay and inconvenience rather than an involved experience on how the Criminal Justice System operates.You've pretty much described an authoritarian state.

Boudreaux Bob
5th Dec 2014, 13:59
Not at all.....in such a State there would be no Civil Recourse.

OFSO
5th Dec 2014, 14:05
I would not use anything such as a mobile phone to take a clip if the Guardia Civil stopped me. Not, that is, if I wanted to have a phone to use afterwards.
It might accidently fall to the floor and get trodden on or accidently fall against the butt of a pistol and get broken.

chuks
5th Dec 2014, 14:07
PTT ... nice one, about my reading comprehension, but show me where I wrote that you said that I used absolute acquiescence. You strongly hinted that, but I simply said that was not what I used. You were not directly accused of having said that I had; now you seem to have misread my hint in response to your hint.

You were disagreeing about the decision to arrest being solely that of the policeman, a decision that you should have no say in. You claim some possible ability to be able to play a role in that by convincing a policeman not to arrest you, a claim made with "if I can convince him not to arrest [me] then I will do so."

Sorry, old bean, but that's like me writing, "If I can fly by flapping my arms then I will do so," where I am making as clear a claim to believe in my ability to do that as you made claiming some strange powers of persuasion over policemen. You made the claim all right; now all I want to know is, "How do you do that?" Can you, or can't you, somehow convince a policeman not to arrest you, yes or no?

Gertrude, each state in the USA has different tax laws. (For instance, New Hampshire is famous for charging no state tax at all.)

It's just like the situation in the UK with people returning from France with booze and fags, in fact. You can go across to New Jersey or France (is there much difference?) to buy cigarettes that are taxed at a lower rate; you can't legally bring them back to New York City or London to sell them to third parties. Mr Garner was being arrested for doing exactly that in New York City, same as you might be for doing that in the UK.

Too, if you wanted to resist arrest in the way that he did, you too might end up just as dead.

I assume that you, like me, did not attend law school, so that we might again prevail upon the Flying Lawyer for the definitive answer to this one, but I do not think that you have any "right ... to use reasonable force to avoid being illegally detained," if you mean by that "being illegally arrested by an officer of the law."

Even if a copper wants to arrest you for "loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing" then you really need to go along quietly, because there's no such thing as "reasonable force" used to resist arrest. The policeman has his powers of arrest, but you do not have any powers to resist arrest, not right there on the spot, beyond perhaps pointing out very politely that you do not think that you are doing anything illegal, just waiting for the light to turn green. It's a Catch 22: resisting arrest is itself illegal.

Go ahead and pull out that imaginary gun of yours to shoot the cop, pleading that he was doing something illegal there, arresting you, something you needed to use reasonable force to prevent, but do not expect doing that to work out very well back here on Planet Earth.

PTT
5th Dec 2014, 14:18
show me where I wrote that you said that I used absolute acquiescence.I didn't say you did. What I said was that I wasn't saying you did go for absolute acquiescence and in fact went for something else, thereby proving my point that there are other options.

You claim some possible ability to be able to play a role in that by convincing a policeman not to arrest you, a claim made with "if I can convince him not to arrest [me] then I will do so."

Sorry, old bean, but that's like me writing, "If I can fly by flapping my arms then I will do so," where I am making as clear a claim to believe in my ability to do that as you made claiming some strange powers of persuasion over policemen. You made the claim all right; now all I want to know is, "How do you do that?" Can you, or can't you, somehow convince a policeman not to arrest you, yes or no?Again, comprehension of a conditional statement about which you are making unwarranted assumptions. You're building a really lovely strawman but it's not my argument. Do carry on, though, as it is fun to watch you flailing at it. You'll soon be rivalling this one:
http://www.fmvmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Wicker-Man3.jpg

Boudreaux Bob
5th Dec 2014, 14:25
Chuks,

Actually we do have that "Right" to resist an Illegal Arrest.

But exactly as you state the Devil is in the details.

Recent case in Texas, Home Owner shot and killed a Cop claiming he thought it was a Home Invasion Robbery when it was actually some Cops trying to serve a Search Warrant.

The Court found the Home Owner Not Guilty.

He was very lucky to live to see his Day in Court as when the shooting starts...most Cops shoot back.

Choosing the wrong method to "resist" an Illegal Arrest is the real danger when asserting One's Rights. Far better to do that in a Court rather than on the Street as the outcome is far more predictable and less risky to Life and Limb....and usually far more lucrative financially.

I would hope Flying Lawyer would second what I am saying in this Post and consider it good advice to all.

Don't Fight'em......Sue'em!

https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/636eb514-1c31-463b-8b58-a3756da0b62e.pdf

PTT
5th Dec 2014, 14:35
Not at all.....in such a State there would be no Civil Recourse.Of course there would. Authoritarianism allows that it can be wrong if it decides it is, but does not allow resistance to its exercise of power.

chuks
5th Dec 2014, 14:42
PTT, I believe you, really I do! Of course you meant that I went for some other option between the two you named, when that could have been anything, anything at all. Thing is, I never said that you did what you now piously claim you did not! I simply said that I did not take that particular option, one of only two you named.

Here, try this one: "I do not eat my peas with a knife!" Do you now feel a need to tell everyone here that you never said that I did? Why would that be, pray tell?

So, what is your argument when it comes to your being able to persuade a policeman either to arrest you or not to do so? Do you have such powers of persuasion or not? Silly me, I thought you made some claim to having them.

Please clear up my misunderstanding of what you claim to be able to do with a policeman intent on making an arrest. As in my case: You have been stopped and questioned because of something you have done. What next? What are you able to do by way of persuasion? How do you go about that?

Me, I claim to have been able not to have persuaded that Wilmington policeman to arrest me, mainly by (very uncharacteristically) having kept my big mouth shut.

Read that one real slowly, when you can see that I am not claiming to have persuaded him of anything at all, certainly not to have persuaded him not to arrest me. No, I just clammed up and let him get on with whatever decision-making he was doing over there, sat in his cruiser looking over one very dodgy-looking German driving license and a car registration from Maine that was void of any relationship to yr humble scribe.

PTT
5th Dec 2014, 15:08
Of course you meant that I went for some other option between the two you namedWell at least you are starting to comprehend English. You'll note that I was actually talking about " a wealth of options between absolute acquiescence and violent assault".
So, what is your argument when it comes to your being able to persuade a policeman either to arrest you or not to do so? Do you have such powers of persuasion or not? Silly me, I thought you made some claim to having them. My claim is that if I can then I will.

I get what your claim is. Coercion does not always require positive action, and silence is a useful tool in and of itself. Through your actions you helped define the outcome.

Armchairflyer
5th Dec 2014, 16:31
(Too) few people apparently know how it feels to be unable to breathe owing to someone else exerting pressure on your chest/ribcage. It's a rotten feeling to say the least, and there isn't even a need to be genuinely asthmatic and overweight, struggling with a training partner and suffering from pollen allergy is sufficient.

No hostility towards police staff (especially those at the sharp end), but apparently completely ignoring these repeated "I can't breathe"-moans is -- mildly put -- outright a...hole behaviour IMO, especially given the odds here. OTOH, I agree with those who argue that it was probably not so much the chokehold as the following harsh fixation that did the damage. The chokehold was apparently released before Garner said that he couldn't breathe, besides, to me it looks much more like a blood choke than an air choke.

chuks
5th Dec 2014, 16:38
So, PTT, if you can then you will [convince a policeman not to arrest you]. That's fine and I do not doubt your abilities in that direction.

Was it not Lamont Cranston, the Shadow, who had "the ability to cloud men's minds"? Therefore, your claim is not without precedent, if indeed you are making one, a claim about your ability to convince some random copper not to feel your collar. I am with you 100% on this. After all, it's much sounder than opening fire on them, as another poster here seems to be recommending.

No, my question is a very simple one. How should one convince a policeman not to arrest one? I find them to be quite resistant to reason when bent on possibly making an arrest. "Stubborn" does not even come close, so that I tend to abjure reason, dialogue, anything of that nature when dealing with the police. Now I sincerely need you to tell me what your method of convincing a policeman might possibly be; none come to my mind.

No, wait .... There was one, one Bob might know about too: bribery! That was Nigeria, though. I hope that's not what you have in mind.

How Garner was treated ... not humane, not humane at all, to leave him there in the street untended for a while, dying. Nobody deserves to be treated that way. It's just that it was not quite so that he was simply "choked to death," as many newspaper headlines and protesters want to have it. More like "Let the gomer die; he had it coming." (Gomer - Get out of my Emergency Room. See also: Oxygen thief.)

Boudreaux Bob
5th Dec 2014, 16:54
The interesting side note to all this flap in NYC is the Officer-in-Charge of the Detail that arrested the fellow happens to be a Black Female with the rank of Sergeant who was present and in command during the event in question.

You notice the Media conveniently leaves that wee small insignificant fact out of all their blabbering.

Flyingmac
5th Dec 2014, 17:02
The vast majority of police officers do not join the force for the right reasons. They don't voluntarily put their lives on the line in an altruistic endeavour to 'Protect the public', any more than our squaddies join up to protect Queen and Country.


Over the years I've encountered Police officers who were liars, cheats, thieves, bullies and egomaniacs all hiding behind their uniforms.


I know there are many who genuinely have our interests at heart, but I don't know which ones they are. So I view them all with a deep mistrust and look upon them as the lesser of two evils.


I think myself lucky that most of ours aren't armed. They don't have a good track record with firearms.

svhar
5th Dec 2014, 17:06
What I find disturbing about the video is that the one choking the "victim" is some guy in a green baseball shirt, number 99. Not a uniformed policeman. The other guy with the baseball hat, has tattoos all over his arms and legs, like you can see in prison movies. I would never trust or respect these two. It is not until well into the clip that "real" uniformed policemen arrive at the scene. By then the damage seems to be have done.

Once I was strolling in Copenhagen. Two bearded and shabby dudes were beating up some guy on the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. I was certain that they were two thugs mugging the guy. Then they shouted "Politi", pulled out some handcuffs, cuffed the guy and disappeared with him around a corner.

I would never obey some shabby, long haired, bearded or tattooed dude in the street. Not matter what he shouted. I have spent considerable time in Bogotá, Colombia. It is famous for its "policías falsos". They approach obvious foreigners, pretending to be policemen, lure them into some corner only to mug them. Telling them to FO in their own language usually works fine.

chuks
5th Dec 2014, 17:06
Every day I say a small prayer of thanks that I chose aviation and not the police force. Bob, too, I bet.

Such nice people we get to work with! Why, Bob, he even got to rub elbows with a member of the French aristocracy!

No, the police ... terrible people. That said, though, they do have their uses.

BenThere
5th Dec 2014, 17:21
I'm happy to share my technique for avoiding unlawful arrest.

I drive a 2000 Chevy Venture mini-van to and from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on a route that takes me through seedy neighborhoods and a notorious speed trap.

Here are my countermeasures:

My Chevy minivan is a little shabby, with open rust sores, faded paint, and obvious age. A revenue minded cop would pass by stopping me as I would likely not have the means to pay his $400 speeding ticket.

I've adorned my back window with a "God Bless America, with an American flag" decal so as to convey that the cop and I are on the same side.

I have a Michigan Veterans of Foreign Wars decal also for the same purpose.

Last month I acquired a Veteran license plate that says "Veteran" and "US Air Force".

So any cop who would stop or arrest me, I hope, will feel a certain kinship, like cousins in the struggle, and gaze upon my infractions with a benign eye.

That's my strategy. I also try my utmost not to do anything unlawful where I might get caught.

con-pilot
5th Dec 2014, 17:56
I have miniature US Marshal badges on the licenses plates of my vehicles for the same reason Ben.

My wife, who used to work for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, had a Oklahoma Highway Patrol badge on the license plate of her car, until it was stolen. The badge that is, not the car. ;)

Do they work, guess so, we've not been stop by the police since we have had them on the cars. But then again, we are not what one could call notorious law breakers.


Oh, I forgot, my oldest son has a miniature US Marshal badge on the vehicle he primarily drives and he was stopped for speeding in a small town, the cop asked him about the badge, my son told him who I was and the cop let him go.

But then again, small town cops are easily impressed. :p

West Coast
5th Dec 2014, 18:56
Should you get pulled over...

I keep my hands on the upper part of the steering wheel, in his/her view. No jerky movements as if I'm reaching for something.

Here's a revelation, every time I've been pulled over, I deserved it. Funny enough, I've never felt as though my life was in danger. Wierd I know.

BenThere
5th Dec 2014, 19:08
I haven't been stopped either, since around 1985, when I was tooling down I-5 coming home from a long weekend in San Diego. It was after midnight, and I had a brand new Mazda RX-7 and wanted to see what it could do in the wee hours between Fresno and Stockton. I think I got it up to about 120.

As I slowed down to normal speed I saw the red lights in the mirror, to my horror. I was in deep shit, I thought.

The cop who pulled me over asked if I was in the military, having seen the decal on my windshield.

"I'm in the air force reserve", I answered.

"Unless you've got a whole lot of money, you better slow down, Son. I'll let it go this time."

I said, "Thank you, sir. I owe you."

That's how it should work, eh?

con-pilot
5th Dec 2014, 19:36
Back in my Marshal days we worked with quite a few retired cops, they were guards in the 727s, as it was easy money for them and they mostly sat in the back of the aircraft, not doing a hell of a lot and got to travel around the country while getting paid to do so by Uncle Sam.

We (pilots) would met up with them on RONs in the hotel bars and would listen to their stories of back when they were cops before they retired. Most of the stories were funny, some of the things they ran across would make us laugh so hard we could hardly drink our Scotch.

However, to the man (and a couple of women) the one thing that they feared the worse and would make them nervous as hell, was stopping a vehicle with heavily tinted windows. Windows tinted so dark it was impossible to see anything in the vehicle, they couldn't see how many people were in the vehicle or what they were doing. It could be some little old lady (never was) or a car load of gang bangers (usually the case). Fortunately nothing bad happened to the cops we had working for us in these types of encounters, but every one of them knew a cop that had things go south on them.

A lot of states have passed laws to mandate that any tinting of vehicle windows cannot be so dark as one cannot see into the vehicle, but not all of them. Here is standard practice that when a vehicle with heavily tinted windows is stopped, nothing will be done by the officer that stopped the vehicle until back up arrives.

Personally I don’t like nervous cops stopping me, so I don’t understand why people would go out of their way to make cops nervous by tinting their car windows so dark that one cannot see inside.

BabyBear
5th Dec 2014, 19:55
I haven't been stopped either, since around 1985, when I was tooling down I-5 coming home from a long weekend in San Diego. It was after midnight, and I had a brand new Mazda RX-7 and wanted to see what it could do in the wee hours between Fresno and Stockton. I think I got it up to about 120.

As I slowed down to normal speed I saw the red lights in the mirror, to my horror. I was in deep shit, I thought.

The cop who pulled me over asked if I was in the military, having seen the decal on my windshield.

"I'm in the air force reserve", I answered.

"Unless you've got a whole lot of money, you better slow down, Son. I'll let it go this time."

I said, "Thank you, sir. I owe you."

That's how it should work, eh?



Ah, I see how it works, Ben. You find it acceptable to not only break the law but to pervert the course of justice by using your status to corrupt a cop in to failing in his duty and laughably claim that's how it should be.:ok:


Yet when it comes to others breaking the law they deserve all they get even if it accidentally results in death. Not to make a point about what it says about the credibility of the police you so admire.

Great rational argument there.:ugh:

BB

BenThere
5th Dec 2014, 20:34
Great rational argument there.

Thank you, BabyBear.

Rationality is the point, yes?

OFSO
5th Dec 2014, 20:45
tinting their car windows so dark that one cannot see inside

It's illegal to have tinted windows forward of the "B" pillar in Europe. Some people do, but risk losing the car when stopped for a check. Spain & Germany, tinting has to be approved and written in the car docs.

Krystal n chips
5th Dec 2014, 20:47
" Rationality is the point, yes?"

The post prior to your own ( from Baby Bear ) was very rational.

Yours has a rather basic spelling error.....you missed out the letters....Ir.

Still, it's nice to learn that if you display a few badges, then the usual laws of the land can be quietly ignored.....which particular Amendment covers this action then.....just out of interest ?

con-pilot
5th Dec 2014, 20:51
It's illegal to have tinted windows forward of the "B" pillar in Europe. Some people do, but risk losing the car when stopped for a check. Spain & Germany, tinting has to be approved and written in the car docs.

That is the way it should be here, too bad it is not.

con-pilot
5th Dec 2014, 21:02
then the usual laws of the land can be quietly ignored.....

No one is ignoring any law. If one choses to break a law, not ignoring said law and you get caught, for speeding for an example, it is one's opinion to attempt to talk your way out of a ticket, if you can, if you cannot, you get a ticket.

Simple as that.

Do you obey every single letter of the law of the country you live in? Never drive a few miles an hour over the speed limit? Never take a short cut at a roundabout when there is no traffic? Never float a Stop sign? Never j-walk?

And if ever stopped by the police for any of the above, never tried to talk your way out of any type of ticket?

BabyBear
5th Dec 2014, 21:32
Of course I have done, con, all of the above.

However to argue a guy accused of selling loosies deserved all he got when killed by police because he objected (rightly or wrongly) to his arrest and then go on to boast about driving at 120 (an activity more likely to result in harm) and claim it is proper and acceptable for the police to be negligent in carrying out their sworn duty beggars belief.

Such mentality........well, we know what it demonstrates so I'll leave it there.

BB

Flying Lawyer
5th Dec 2014, 21:36
chucksHow is someone being "choked to death" able to speak?
With increasing difficulty – until the hold is released or the person being held loses consciousness and/or dies.

People may also be able to speak (eg saying they can't breathe) if their abdomen is compressed by a heavy weight. Their ability to speak will reduce and eventually disappear completely if the compression leads to respiratory failure and subsequent asphyxia.

BobI would hope Flying Lawyer would second what I am saying in this Post and consider it good advice to all.

I agree that, generally, the wiser course is to comply and seek a remedy later: (a) Your belief that the policeman is acting unlawfully may turn out to be incorrect.
(b) Unless there are independent witnesses who are prepared to say what they saw and heard or the incident is being video-recorded, there is a risk that 'recollections' about what happened, what was said/done and by whom, the manner of the arrest etc may differ very significantly.

Perhaps the most compelling reason for complying is the risk (thankfully not high) that a minor incident might escalate out of all proportion - and you end up in the morgue.


FL

Gordy
5th Dec 2014, 21:49
Truer words never uttered.

I saw this many years ago during my studies and have saved it and listen to remind myself annually, it is WELL worth the time:

6wXkI4t7nuc

con-pilot
5th Dec 2014, 21:50
However to argue a guy accused of selling loosies deserved all he got when killed by police because he objected (rightly or wrongly) to his arrest

First off, he did not merely "object" to being arrested, he resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer. And yes, slapping someone in New York City is considered assault, whether it be a police officer or an ordinary civilian.

Was the reaction by the police go too far when he resisted arrest and hit the police officer, I happen to think it was. But I was not on the Grand Jury, eight members of which were, in the words of NBC Nightly News, “non-white”, whatever that means.

There is a major difference between being caught by a cop when speeding on an empty highway and trying to talk your way out of a ticket and screaming at the cops and hitting them to avoid arrest.

Oh, and the little Marshal badge does not always work. A couple of years ago I was stopped for speeding, I was just was not paying attention how fast I was going. The police officer walked up to my car and asked me about my Marshal’s badge, I told him that I was retried and he replied “Well you should know better then.” and wrote me the ticket.

Quite shockingly, I did not jump out of my car, start screaming at the cop and assault him.

Flying Lawyer
5th Dec 2014, 22:57
BenThereIf you want to ask me questions about police, I'm happy to answer.
I'm curious about the offer.
What is your expertise?


con-pilot(he) ..... assaulted a police officer. And yes, slapping someone in New York City is considered assault
Would you mind posting a link to the video that shows him assaulting/slapping a police officer.
The video I've seen doesn't show that.
Many thanks.

BabyBear
5th Dec 2014, 23:37
Con, to be so selective in what you take from my post and then to be so weak and inaccurate with your assessment serves to demonstrate the extent of your bias.

And yes, slapping someone in New York City is considered assault, whether it be a police officer or an ordinary civilian.

It's applicable to ordinary civilians, even if it was true is it really in circumstances where said civilians lay hands on first?

Tell me, is being deserving of being killed reserved for sellers of loosies, reserved for blacks, folks with certain incomes, from certain areas, unemployed...?

Is 'how it should be' applicable only to Ben, whites, those earning more than $50K, or those with a university education, or just those with a badge...?

I'm genuinely interested in how you differentiate between the two (albeit it was Ben who made the statement)?

Be good to hear your views too Ben.

BB

Boudreaux Bob
6th Dec 2014, 00:19
Resisting he did.....but I did not see any assault on an officer prior to the first Officer grabbing him around the Neck and then several other Officers getting involved.

It gets hard to see when the guy gets pulled backwards and turns due to all the other Officers being between the camera and the fellow being arrested.

Hempy
6th Dec 2014, 00:33
Be good to hear your views too Ben.

Oh I laughed! Just read con-pliots posts!!

edit: I'll help!

The 2nd Amendment is a Law of the Land, and as such is inviolate. But Laws are also 'optional' - you can break them if you personally think they are dumb, but you need to be aware that there are circumstances that could conceivably mean that breaking just about any Law could lead to your Lawful death.

This could either be at the hands of a Law Abiding citizen who is Legally armed, or by an Officer of the Law fulfilling his Legal obligation. Officers of the Law however should also be prepared to let Law Breakers go if the Law they are breaking is considered dumb by the Law Breaker, and the Law Breaker demonstrates to the Officer of the Law that he is a Good Guy.

If the Officer of the Law shoots you, it is an example of the Government gone mad. If an Officer of the Law shoots someone else, he was just upholding the Law. The Law Breaker deserved to die for choosing to break the Law that he thought was dumb.




I think! :ugh:

con-pilot
6th Dec 2014, 00:57
It's applicable to ordinary civilians, even if it was true is it really in circumstances where said civilians lay hands on first?


Not too sure what you are asking here. But, taking it as it reads, yes even when a civilian lays hands on anybody first, another civilian or a police officer, it is still assault.

By the way, it may have escaped your notice, but the supervising officer on the scene, was a female black sergeant. Also, if you watched the video, some of the officers assisting in the arrest, were black as well.

Tell me, is being deserving of being killed reserved for sellers of loosies, reserved for blacks, folks with certain incomes, from certain areas, unemployed...?


This question makes a little more sense, so I'll do my best to answer it as it is written.

First off, the police did not accost Garner with the intent to kill him, merely arrest him for selling un-taxed cigarettes. His resistance to being arrested lead to his death. Those are the facts, the facts used by the Grand Jury to return no indictment. Again, eight members of that Grand Jury were 'non-white'.

So, may I ask you a question in return; are you in possession of facts not presented to the Grand Jury that would have changed their decision?

Is 'how it should be' applicable only to Ben, whites, those earning more than $50K, or those with a university education, or just those with a badge...?


How it should be, is that when faced by the police or questioned by the police, you do not yell at the police, you obey the police and above all, you do not fight police, whether you are white, black, yellow, brown or green. Or whether you make $10,000 dollars a year or $10,000,000 dollars a year. Or whether you are a grade school dropout or have two Ph.D.s.

Badge or no "stinkin' badges". :p

I hope this answers your questions. :ok:

By the way, Grand Juries are pretty notorious for handing down decisions that make the District Attorney look good, the more indictments, the more convictions, the better the DA looks for reelection.



FL

In the video I have seen, which I can only presume is the same one everyone else has seen, a police officer reaches for the cigarettes and Garner starts slapping the officer's hands. At least that is what I remember, however, I'll look at it again to make sure.

Boudreaux Bob
6th Dec 2014, 01:19
'I can't breathe': Eric Garner put in chokehold by NYPD officer ? video | US news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/04/i-cant-breathe-eric-garner-chokehold-death-video)


No assault....just resisting.

Seen is the Black Female Supervisor in uniform wearing the SGT's Stripes.

Mr Chips
6th Dec 2014, 01:28
Well, that's a fascinating video, and quite ironic that it ends with "Guardian : The Whole Picture" when the video is clearly either edited or stopped and started.

Just curious - why did he continue to resist when 4 or 5 police were trying to handcuff him?

con-pilot
6th Dec 2014, 01:41
Thank you Bob, okay, it is more of a case of resisting arrest than assaulting, both or either a crime, so I guess that makes some difference, but not much.

As soon as the police officer on Garner's right side touches Garner’s arm, Garner starts fighting the police, the rest ends up tragically.

If he had not fought the police, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Just like in an aircraft accident, no one thing causes these sort of things, it is a long chain that leads up to a tragic ending.

On an interesting note, I just read (I’ll try to find the link) that the New York Police are considering a work action where they will not enforce the Mayor’s orders to crack down on minor "quality of life" offenses.

Here it is.

Police: Chokehold victim complicit in own death - AOL.com (http://www.aol.com/article/2014/12/05/police-chokehold-victim-complicit-in-own-death/21003625/)

Some are advising each other that the best way to preserve their careers is to stop making arrests like that of Garner's, in defiance of the NYPD's campaign of cracking down on minor "quality of life" offenses as a way to discourage serious crime.

Boudreaux Bob
6th Dec 2014, 03:47
Either they don't enforce those laws or they really enforce those laws....as sometimes the outcry over such enforcement can achieve the same result as not enforcing them....and at far less risk for the Officers if Supervision were to take disciplinary action for their refusing to carry out their assigned duties.

An Example....Parking around the City Hospital was terrible. Far too few parking places, too many private home driveways that were blocked by parked cars, and along comes the directive that we were to write Parking Tickets to people that were visiting loved ones who where in Hospital. As a Group, we felt that was a really shitty thing to have to do.

Some suggested we refuse to write the tickets....I suggested we do just the opposite and write as many as we could....in one evening. We did that....each Officer in my Squad went out and wrote Tickets till we got Writer's Cramp and Carpal Tunnel simultaneously. We are talking over 500 parking tickets in one night for an Eight Man Squad.

The Outcry the next couple of Days was beautiful....TV, Newspaper, Radio....all raising Holy Hell about how heartless the Police Department was to do such a thing.

Next Order that came down was to never write a Parking Ticket near the Hospital.

There is more than one way to fight the Bureaucracy.

chuks
6th Dec 2014, 05:59
There's a new report just in, of a stabbing on an Amtrak train somewhere in Middle America, when the attacker, who does not appear to be white, is shown alive and well, face down in cuffs after having been non-lethally subdued by law enforcement.

I have no idea what our alert commentators from abroad should make of this failure of American law enforcement to follow their SOP, murdering the hell out of people of color. It might be that the police are responding now to all the moral outrage expressed over the deaths of such innocents as Garner and Brown, that a new era is dawning. On the other hand, it might be that the police are really not so intent as all that on killing random people of color. I guess there's no way to tell about this for certain, so that we should all just go with whichever opinion seems to fit.

I am sure that the attacker on the train is a victim of society in some way; perhaps he comes from a broken home. I think we should be told! Just not, this time, by the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, nor, probably, by President Obama. "If I had a son, he would look just like this maniac who stabbed a few folks on that train .... Hey! Who's been messing with the teleprompter? Where's Hagel?"

Flying Lawyer
6th Dec 2014, 08:02
con-pilot As soon as the police officer on Garner's right side touches Garner’s arm, Garner starts fighting the police

As frequently happens when witnesses give evidence in courts, different people see different things.

There are several versions of the video on the net, some longer than others, some cluttered with comments and some not.
This version below is the longest and clearest I've found - which I followed from a link in the first post by John Hill.

I have watched the video several times and cannot see him fighting at any stage.
I tried viewing it while concentrating on his hands throughout, ignoring everything else, with the same result.

New York Daily News video (http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=90051&siteSection=nydailynews-new-york&videoId=26426042)

FL

BabyBear
6th Dec 2014, 09:32
I am not arguing that he did not contribute to the tragedy, what I am arguing is that there is more to it than the biased view of the police worshippers. Said worshippers do not see the police as having any responsibility.

As the body with the authority and carrying out the arrest in such a non life threatening situation the responsibility for safe and orderly arrest lies with the police.

To ignore the cries of being unable to breath is unacceptable given there were more than enough officers to control the situation had he been crying wolf. Totally unacceptable in the circumstances irrespective of what %age make the same call. A risk proven to be not worth taking.


BB

chuks
6th Dec 2014, 09:42
I agree that the video doesn't show Mr Garner fighting with the police, trading blows, although he certainly could be said to be shown resisting arrest. There's nothing there of him "coming along quietly," is there? In fact, at one point he's definitely "squaring up" to the first policeman, the one with the tattoos, before everything goes pear-shaped.

On the other hand, the video doesn't seem to show him being "choked to death," either. In fact, I don't think you can speak when you are being choked, since the trachea should be shut then, leaving you unable to produce sound. If he was being smothered, sure, then he could speak, but many headlines allege that Mr Garner was choked to death.

I have seen other videos of arrests, since they seem to be quite popular nowadays, when cries of agony may be heard coming from people who are merely being restrained. Check out the one of that actress in LA who was cuffed after refusing to provide ID. She sounds as if she's being tortured! "Good acting," I guess one could say.

BB, you don't seem to see any responsibility on the part of members of the public to behave properly. No, go a bit crazy, and if the po-lice hurts you, seek your justices. Perhaps you want to keep the Reverend Al Sharpton's telephone number in your wallet, just in case. A word of warning, though: the Rev usually only helps those who are useful to the Rev in some way. Do not expect him to be a true good Samaritan.

It does look as if the arrest was done to a low standard, one that contributed to Mr Garner's demise. For instance, towards the end of the video, Mr Garner seems to have been placed in the "recovery position," but it doesn't look as if anyone is checking closely to see if he's still breathing.

Flying Lawyer
6th Dec 2014, 10:29
chuks

I agree he can be described as resisting arrest.
I disagree about "squaring up".

the video doesn't seem to show him being "choked to death," either. In fact, I don't think you can speak when you are being choked
You said that earlier.
My previous response was based upon evidence adduced in murder trials in which I've been involved over the years.
many headlines allege that Mr Garner was choked to death
Headlines are written by sub-editors, not doctors.
'Choke-hold' is a well known term. Doctors refer to it but it is not a medical term. Even in common parlance, people described as 'choking' are still able to speak. If they are "choked to death," they can't because they are dead, but they can in the period leading up to loss of consciousness and/or death. I don't suggest they can engage in conversation - just short bursts.

In any event, the man didn't (as far as I heard) say he was being choked.
What he kept pleading was "I can't breathe, I can't breathe."


FL

chuks
6th Dec 2014, 10:45
It's the news outlets and the protesters who speak simply of Mr Garner being "choked to death," "killed with an illegal choke-hold" and so-on. The truth might be very different, given that he was an asthmatic with a heart condition.

I'm certainly not going to volunteer to test my thesis about not being able to speak when being choked. Anyway, it's clear that in the early stages of the take-down, Mr Garner was subjected to what clearly appears to be a dangerous hold: a policeman's fore-arm is seen to be wrapped around his throat in a way that seems calculated to either cut off his air or the supply of blood to his brain or both.

There's a video of a professional wrestler, Hulk Hogan, putting a TV presenter in a similar hold, one that puts his lights out in very few seconds by cutting off the supply of blood to the brain. Hogan puts him in the hold for not very long, and when he releases him the presenter flops to the floor like a rag doll. It's an easy hold to do when you know how, but one that is also dangerous.

BabyBear
6th Dec 2014, 10:46
BB, you don't seem to see any responsibility on the part of members of the public to behave properly.

On the contrary, chuks, I'm sick fed up by the liberal attitudes of modern society where the odds of winning the lottery are higher than the odds of finding someone who will accept responsibility for their own actions.

However, as I said, I try to be objective and seeing some of the weak one sided inaccurate arguments with the odd irrelevant analogy thrown in I decided to contribute.

BB

Flying Lawyer
6th Dec 2014, 11:03
chucksThe truth might be very different, given that he was an asthmatic with a heart condition.

The result might possibly have been different.

According to the reports I've read, the NYC medical examiner concluded that compression of Mr Garner's neck and chest, along with his positioning on the ground while being restrained, caused his death.

Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors.

chuks
6th Dec 2014, 17:58
I just read a NY Times article from 1 August 2014, where Michael Baden, a former Chief Medical Examiner for the City, stated that putting enough pressure on the back of an obese person laid prone can prevent the diaphragm from "going up and down, and he can't exhale or inhale." So there's his cause of death, alright, not Garner's other health problems. I suppose that absent those he might have lasted a bit longer, perhaps long enough to be released from the position he was in, but that position was one where he really could not breathe.

Boudreaux Bob
6th Dec 2014, 18:18
Acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors.

As was his Combativeness which surely connotes some underlying Psychological Problem which was manifested in his aggressive and combative demeanor when approached by the Police.

Had he not assume the hostile attitude, resisted arrest, then none of this would have happened. I would imagine the Police would have used a couple of pair of Handcuffs to allow for his size when securing him for transport which would have allowed him sufficient freedom of movement to prevent any breathing problems (assuming he had complied with their commands during the arrest and not become combative).

All the while we are finding fault with the Police....we also must be honest and critique the Dead Man's contributions to the situation that resulted in his Death.

He was a very large fellow as compared to most of the Police Officers who first grappled with him.

Another question that arises is what kind of training did the Officer who applied the Chokehold have? Was he a former Soldier or Marine who had been trained in the use of that Tactical Technique? If he did, did that Training over power the Police Department Training he had received and in the stress of the encounter did he revert to earlier but stronger imprinted actions?

The other question is did the Officer intent to "Choke" the Suspect or was he just trying to take the guy to the pavement and did so by grabbing him around the Neck as he did. That might explain why the Suspect was pulled backwards and twisted around as he went backwards.

These things are not as simple to explain as some think.

Take yourself back to the Rodney King beating....I criticized the Cops for "Not" piling on as they did in this one. At my PD, we would do a Scrum in a heartbeat and sometimes (as in this latest thing in New York) get in our own way by having too many Cops trying to get hands on the Suspect. I have seen a Cop get a Hand Cuffed by mistake in one of them when his arm was mistaken for the Suspect's arm.

Cops are trained to immobilize a Suspect that is resisting and as long as they use only that force necessary to effect the arrest...then they are acting within the scope of their legal authority. They appeared to do that in the video. There were no punches or kicks done....and all they appeared to do was hold on and move the suspect's arms behind his back.

chuks
6th Dec 2014, 18:32
The thing is, the position the police put him in was one that left him unable to breathe.

I don't know about you, but breathing is one of my favorite activities. I try to do that every few seconds or so. I'm not obese, but still, put enough weight on my back while I'm face-down and I might find myself having to do without breathing, and that for long enough to kill me.

It's easy to see, with hindsight, what must have happened there. It's one thing to immobilize this guy, all 370 pounds of him, by piling a couple of cops on top of him, but something else to sort of squash him to death doing that. That was a screw-up. That said, of course Mr Garner contributed a lot to finding himself face-down with not a few of New York's Finest atop him, but still ....

PTT
6th Dec 2014, 18:41
my question is a very simple one. How should one convince a policeman not to arrest one?Having never been threatened with arrest I have no idea. If I were, though, and I felt it was unjustified (which is unlikely), then I would attempt to convince the policeman otherwise. The exact actions would be very situational.It's easy to see, with hindsight, what must have happened there. It's one thing to immobilize this guy, all 370 pounds of him, by piling a couple of cops on top of him, but something else to sort of squash him to death doing that. That was a screw-up. That said, of course Mr Garner contributed a lot to finding himself face-down with not a few of New York's Finest atop him, but still ....So what are your thoughts on the grand jury's decision now?

con-pilot
6th Dec 2014, 18:50
FL

As frequently happens when witnesses give evidence in courts, different people see different things.


Very true, as I was taught at the NTSB Aircraft Accident Investigator's school. Many times eye witness testimony is worse than rubbish, if can lead an investigation entirely in the wrong direction. Never the less, I still see him resisting arrest.

Now, did the degree of response by the police well exceed the level of resistance offered by Mr. Garner? In my opinion, yes it did. I don’t think it was necessary for Garner to be put in a “choke hold”, hell the cops outnumbered him 5 to 1, or more. They could have just held his arms until he was put into restraints. But I was not there and as far I can find out, there is only one video showing this incident.

However, tragically, that was not what happened. Whatever did happen was investigated by the DA’s office and those findings, the video and any other evidence, including testimony that we may be totally unaware of, was presented to the Grand Jury, who decided not to hand down an indictment. That is how our system is supposed to work, the great majority of the time the system works as it should, on rare occasions it does not.

As Attorney General Holder has announced that he has directed the FBI to open up an investigation on this incident, it may come to an entirely different conclusion. I can only presume that this will be a Civil Rights violation issue because Mr. Garner is black, which may be a little tricky, as the supervising officer was black and at least two other officers involved were black as well.

Time will tell.

Thank you, I’ve enjoyed this discussion, even though as tragic as the subject is.

Armchairflyer
6th Dec 2014, 18:53
I have a hard time believing that given the number of LEOs (and hopefully a certain amount of training in "gradual" restraint and arrest techniques) they had to press down on his chest instead of using his hips and limbs (especially the legs) tu subdue him.

Wrt to "aggressive and combative", given the annoyed yet clumsy antics seen on the video, these terms somehow smell of sensationalist early evening TV to me, no offense meant. As for the "choke", I don't think it played that much of a role, when he moans "I can't breathe" repeatedly, there was no stranglehold applied anymore.

RatherBeFlying
6th Dec 2014, 22:06
Positional asphyxia is a common cause of death for those handcuffed behind the back, prone and obese.

It's been known and happening for decades.

In Canada, Criminal Negligence Causing Death could be charged.

In NYC I expect a substantial civil claim as a second video shows a number of officers standing about with nobody bothering to check vital signs.

rh200
6th Dec 2014, 22:34
then I would attempt to convince the policeman otherwise.

Which is not uncommon. I would expect long time officers would have a long list of funnys associated with it.

The exact actions would be very situational.

And what would the limit of those actions be, we can see here how people seem to want to be able to resit arrest if they think it is "morally" justified.

The police have training, but the police are human beings and make mistakes, as do their training. Making judgments off the hip at imperfect systems and the people who carry it out are the problem.

The vast majority of them try to do the best they can with what they have. As stated before, the pile on and get him restrained in the quickest possible time was most likely the idea.

Imagine if he resisted and they just stood back and fired tasers at him, how would that have looked, especially if he had croaked it.

There are two main problems here, the trend towards people thinking they can do as they please, including being @rseholes and resisting requests by police. The other is media and armchair judgments.

Thankfully we have a system that sort of works, and they need to go though all the evidence. As the old saying goes, a picture tells a thousand words. But there's another that is well known. Those thousands words can all be wrong. Another words you can easily look at pictures and get the wrong idea.

PTT
6th Dec 2014, 22:58
And what would the limit of those actions beDepends on the situation.
The vast majority of them try to do the best they can with what they have. As stated before, the pile on and get him restrained in the quickest possible time was most likely the idea.I absolutely agree the majority do just that. I disagree that piling on him was the best idea by a long stretch, especially given the known risks of doing so and the fact that he was not acting aggressively at all. Was there some sort of time constraint such that they had to get it done quickly?
the trend towards people thinking they can do as they please, including being @rseholes and resisting requests by police.People can do as they please within the law. Requests by police may or may not be followed depending on the situation.

Flying Lawyer
6th Dec 2014, 23:09
BobAs was his Combativeness which surely connotes some underlying Psychological Problem which was manifested in his aggressive and combative demeanor when approached by the Police.His demeanour does not suggest an underlying psychological problem to me.
Also, we may have very different ideas about what is/is not aggressive and combative. Had he not assume the hostile attitude, resisted arrest, then none of this would have happened.That's almost certainly true. Does that make it unreasonable to discuss what actually happened?All the while we are finding fault with the Police....we also must be honest and critique the Dead Man's contributions to the situation that resulted in his Death.I don't understand why you think posters are not doing that. Most discussion has related to the reaction and conduct of the police towards a suspect who, it appears, was resisting arrest. Some posters consider the police conduct to have been beyond reproach.
What fault, if any, do you find with the Police conduct?The other question is did the Officer intent to "Choke" the Suspect ……….? Based upon the video, I think it highly unlikely that he did.
NB: I'm not suggesting that the Grand Jury's decision was wrong. I'm not in a position to express an opinion either way.

The Grand Jury's decision might have been the same but some might consider it surprising that the DA commenced proceedings against only that one officer and not against all the officers who pinned him to the ground - in particular those who pressed down on his upper torso.
These things are not as simple to explain as some think.I agree.
However, are you including posters on both sides of the debate in that comment?Cops ……….. They appeared to do that in the video. I realise that is your opinion.
....all they appeared to do was hold on and move the suspect's arms behind his back.
What??!!
They can be seen in the video pressing down on his abdomen while he was face down on the ground.
The NYC medical examiner concluded that compression of Mr Garner's neck and chest, along with his positioning on the ground while being restrained, caused his death. (I quoted the contributing factors earlier.)
I think it's a mistake to focus only upon the conduct of one officer

con-pilot

I fully understand your point about the Grand Jury's decision and the force of the point you make is not lost on me. However, that has never prevented discussions in this forum (or elsewhere).
I stopped years ago being amazed by the number of posters who are quick to call judges and juries fools (and worse) when, unlike the judges and juries concerned, they did not hear a word of evidence and are basing their opinions on snippets contained in media reports.
However, in this instance, posters are in the unusual position of being able to watch the same video as was shown to the jury.
Of course, what should also be taken into account is that no-one here (as far as I'm aware) heard the evidence adduced before the jury.

Agree, an interesting discussion.
(There are some posts I'd exclude from that description. ;))

FL


rh200Another words you can easily look at pictures and get the wrong idea.Do you mean that people should bear in mind that improper behaviour by police officers might not have been captured in the video?

The same caveat would apply to both sides in the incident - Police and suspect.

rh200
7th Dec 2014, 07:29
Do you mean that people should bear in mind that improper behaviour by police officers might not have been captured in the video?

The same caveat would apply to both sides in the incident - Police and suspect.

Absolutely correct. We are all guilty of making snap judgments ( well I'm sure some think their not) base upon our own, personal viewpoints and often interpreting a scene that is incomplete. That is why there should be though investigations.

That is also why it is "IMPORTANT" for our leaders not to be throwing fuel on the fire and should supporting the system. If there is an obvious bias or coverup then they should act.

chuks
7th Dec 2014, 08:47
So you have no experience of having been arrested, not even of having been threatened with arrest, so that you "have no idea" how you might "convince the policeman" not to arrest you.

Yes, absolutely! Just start talking when you find yourself in some sort of a fix with the law, when I am sure that some method will come to you. Probably later, when you are locked up in cells, but better late than never.

You might need to spend some time in Africa to work on this thing you hope to be able to do, to get some practical experience. Why, I was even threatened with arrest for failing to stop at a red light, when I was stopped at a red light. A handshake finally convinced that policeman not to arrest me, one that I did with a tightly folded, small wad of naira held between right thumb and palm.

Now, you might think to just hand the man his money, but that wouldn't work very well at all; it's not the done thing. It's rude, in fact.

Then on the other hand, with that policeman from Wilmington, Vermont, well, I guessed that he just didn't want to shake hands at all, the way an African cop might. The cops in Vermont just seem so darn business-like, somehow.

Yes, it's situational, you got that part right, but I think you need to have been in a few situations before you start telling us that you know how to handle yourself.

I was not on that grand jury, the one that examined the death of Mr Garner, so that I have no idea of what evidence they were presented with, to reach the decision they did. Therefore, I have no real opinion about their decision. I am sure you should be happy to share yours, however, an opinion worth as much or more than one I might choose to hold. Please, be my guest; tell all ....

PTT
7th Dec 2014, 10:34
chuks, you do love your strawmen. Do carry on with your interesting adventures of what you imagine I may or may not do: it's quite entertaining, although a little stalkerish :ok:
I think you need to have been in a few situations before you start telling us that you know how to handle yourself. Of course I've never had to convince anyone of anything before, right? :rolleyes:
Please, be my guest; tell all ....On the face of it I am surprised it did not go to trial if for no other reason than to ensure the court of public opinion was satisfied - it would have resolved half these public order problems. The Grand Jury system seems rather like a secret kangaroo court in this and other high-profile cases, which I am sure it is not but is how it is coming across. Justice has to be seen to be done in order for the law to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
That's not a comment on the incident itself, rather on the system in place.

Hempy
7th Dec 2014, 10:54
fP3HJVp3n9c

rh200
7th Dec 2014, 11:05
The Grand Jury system seems rather like a secret kangaroo court in this and other high-profile cases, which I am sure it is not but is how it is coming across

To me the grand jury system just seems like a course filter make sure the that its actually worthwhile going to court. Another words don't waste a sh!t load of money when there just isn't the evidence

PTT
7th Dec 2014, 12:22
rh200 - I'd generally agree it is a filter if it weren't for fact that a Grand Jury very rarely chooses not to indict in cases involving the public (of 162,000 in 2010 only 11 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/) were not indicted). If it's a filter then it's so coarse as to be effectively useless, and I wonder if the money saved from 11 cases not indicted adds up to anything close to the cost of the 162,000 cases heard.
Then there's the secrecy, which is a real problem when it comes to seeing justice to be done. I know the reason for the secrecy itself (witnesses who might not otherwise come forwards) but that is highly situational and not necessarily in the interests of justice, and particularly visible justice.

chuks
7th Dec 2014, 13:06
Where did you come up with this fact, that half of these "public order problems" would have been "resolved" if the grand jury had approved an indictment of one or more of the police involved in the death of Mr Garner? Which half, and how resolved? Or is this just a guess? My guess would be that, indictment or none, many liquor stores across America were going to be making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of "justices."

Hey, PTT, if you want to tell us how to fly an ILS, I sort of expect you to have an Instrument Rating and experience in doing this thing you thereby claim some ability to do. Here you are, saying that you have zero experience of facing an arrest, yet you state that you might be able to deal with that situation in a certain way, convincing a policeman not to arrest you.

What else do you see yourself handling in that way without having any practical experience? I once succeeded in not convincing a green mamba to bite me. Do you see yourself able to convince a green mamba not to bite you?

PTT
7th Dec 2014, 13:36
chuks - you have real problems understanding English, it seems. I will reiterate: I have never claimed to be able to convince someone not to arrest me but, if I were in that position then I would try to do so. This has been my stance since I first stated it in post 57. I have not claimed it would necessarily be successful, but I would try.
You seem to be under the impression that the first attempt is doomed to failure. I've tried plenty of things for the first time and got plenty of them right and plenty of them wrong.
Do you see yourself able to convince a green mamba not to bite you?No idea: I've never tried. I'd certainly give it a go if I needed to, though. I wonder, before you managed to do so, how many times had you done it?

Where did you come up with this fact, that half of these "public order problems" would have been "resolved" if the grand jury had approved an indictment of one or more of the police involved in the death of Mr Garner? Which half, and how resolved? Or is this just a guess? My guess would be that, indictment or none, many liquor stores across America were going to be making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of "justices."I am suggesting that had the Grand Jury's decision been transparent, and the only way to do that is to go to trial given that the Grand Jury system requires secrecy, then a number of people may well have been content that justice had been done. Certainly others would not have been, but to withhold the facts of a case like this serves no reasonable purpose.

chuks
7th Dec 2014, 16:13
PTT ... I "have real problems understanding English"? If you say so, Squire.

Where did you read that I was able to convince a green mamba not to bite me? I don't remember writing that, not at all ....

Seldomfitforpurpose
7th Dec 2014, 16:23
PTT ... I "have real problems understanding English"? If you say so, Squire.

Where did you read that I was able to convince a green mamba not to bite me? I don't remember writing that, not at all ....

Outstanding, may I take my hat off to you :ok:

Boudreaux Bob
7th Dec 2014, 16:28
Chuks very much understands "English" in every connotation and variation to include the National Personalities found so common amongst the indigenous occupants of that small Island from whence that Language originated and other small Islands far removed that use a dialect of the basic language.

PTT
7th Dec 2014, 16:53
Nice troll, and I bit.

The point, though, stands: just because I've never done something before does not mean I should not attempt it, nor does it alter the entire point I am making: if it happens then I will try. That doesn't mean I am confident it will work, merely that I will give it a go.

Same applies for the mamba.

Flash2001
7th Dec 2014, 17:18
Why was Chuks trying to convince a green mamba to bite him?

After an excellent landing etc...

Flying Lawyer
7th Dec 2014, 17:46
PTT

One of the disadvantages of paying inordinate attention to individual trees is that it often leads to a failure to see the wood.

Your habit of doing so, regardless of topic, distracts attention from the often valid points that you are trying to make.

Stanwell
8th Dec 2014, 06:45
FL,
..and he's doing it yet again.

chuks
8th Dec 2014, 08:15
I think you are missing something that should now be obvious:

You still insist on the basic rightness of giving "it a go," whether "it" is trying to make a fool of some relatively unknown other poster here, or trying to convince some cop out on the street, someone completely unknown to you other than that he's obviously a cop, not to arrest you.

It is not a good idea to use this style of yours to convince, because it's risky. Here, well, who cares, but out on the street, dealing with the police?

If one keeps on in this way of yours, with some sort of "Well, yes, Officer, but ... " expecting to make a point simply by failing to shut up, obviously depending on superior intelligence ... how is that meant to work? It's a very dangerous tactic.

PTT
8th Dec 2014, 08:26
If one keeps on in this way of yours, with some sort of "Well, yes, Officer, but ... " expecting to make a point simply by failing to shut up, obviously depending on superior intelligence ... how is that meant to work? It's a very dangerous tactic.At what point did I say this is what I would do? "Convincing" someone can take many forms.

Flying Lawyer
8th Dec 2014, 08:37
PTT

"Convincing" someone can take many forms.

That is true.

However, in my experience, focusing upon trivia and going on and on and on are not two of them.

jolihokistix
8th Dec 2014, 08:39
The guy was not originally aggressive per se, but he was beginning to wind up and get going, and he had stated that today he was going to put his foot down and not allow himself to be arrested this time.

He was beginning to shout too, and the team was standing around wondering how long this was going to take. Their job was simply to arrest the guy, and from their point of view they did not need a possibly hostile crowd gathering. They needed to take him down, get the cuffs on him and take him out of there; he was at the very least wasting their time and could just as easily easily make his case down at the station. One of them made a move from behind, illegally, it seems. It reminded me of a pack of wolves around a deer, with one stronger and quicker and more aggressive darting in from the blind side to affect the take-down (kill).

Should law enforcement be renamed? To enforce means to put some teeth into a very neutral rule that the community has decided upon.

Nowadays many people try to blag it out and often, sadly, the blaggers are more successful at talking their way out of a dodgy situation.

MagnusP
8th Dec 2014, 08:49
I am suggesting that had the Grand Jury's decision been transparent, and the only way to do that is to go to trial given that the Grand Jury system requires secrecy, then a number of people may well have been content that justice had been done

Eh? In other jurisdictions, decisions whether to prosecute are taken by organisations such as the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service here in Scotland. That means people with a vested interest in prosecuting decide whether to indict. At least the Grand Jury system means it's your peers deciding whether there's a case to answer. Can you name a system where a decision on indictment is taken openly?

chuks
8th Dec 2014, 09:36
To keep silent is generally what your lawyer might tell you to do when dealing with the police. Of course you need to answer some very basic questions such as "What is your name and address?" so that total silence is not a good idea, but once one feels the impulse to convince, to go beyond the strictly necessary, then one really needs to stop and listen for the sound of thin ice breaking.

Cleverness often goes totally unappreciated, out on the street, and when it fails you, it might fail rather spectacularly. Then you may end up proving just how clever you really are ....

PTT
8th Dec 2014, 09:41
However, in my experience, focusing upon trivia and going on and on and on are not two of them.Something that perhaps Chuks could take away from this conversation, then :ok:

MagnusP - I didn't ask for the decision to indict to be done openly. I said that a trial would have made the evidence open and justice seen to be done. Grand Juries rarely decide not to indict (except in the case of police, it seems), so it would seem that as a sort of filter they are achieving nothing much at all.

chuks - playing word games on your own must be fun for you, and you played it very well. You keep telling me I'm arguing in favour of something I am not even when I tell you that's not what I am doing. You're building these wonderful strawmen then knocking them down and claiming some great victory because of a deliberately misleadingly-constructed sentence pairing which I admittedly read the way you wanted me to read it. Well done you, but when you actually argue against what I'm saying rather than what you want me to be saying then I'll take heed.

chuks
8th Dec 2014, 10:10
PTT ... I'm not so much arguing against your belief in your ability to convince. I don't need to do that; I let you show us that might not work!

Ever taken a multiple-choice test, when we are always told to RTFQ (Read The F*cking Question)? That's conventional wisdom, just like, "Don't talk to the police!"

All you had to do was to read two sentences exactly as written, perhaps keeping in mind that you had just been very happily burbling on about how I don't understand English very well. No, it was, "No way this dummy is going to fool me!" Uh-huh ....

Now imagine someone with the mindset you showed there, in a confrontation with a policeman:

Everyone knows that cops are stupid; if they were smart then they would have a better job!

I am smarter than this cop because I am not a cop. QED.

Smart people can convince stupid people of whatever they need to convince them of. (Here, one needs to ignore the way that a smack in the mouth often wins the argument.)

I know that lawyers always tell us to keep quiet in police encounters, but that is advice for stupid people. I am smart!

MagnusP
8th Dec 2014, 10:15
PTT, but the Grand Jury examination is only to decide whether there is enough to go to trial, not to try the evidence as one would in a trial. It strikes me as a more even-handed approach, in terms of peer review of a decision to indict, than a case conference behind closed doors by prosecutors.

Hempy
8th Dec 2014, 10:29
Don't get the poor senior citizens too worked up PTT, you might end up with one of them having a cardiac infarction...and then the Internet Police will be after you for wrongful death!!

PTT
8th Dec 2014, 12:31
chuks - I've made no claim about my ability to convince. For some reason you think I have. You also seem to think I've come into this as an adversarial "this guy is trying to fool me" situation rather than a conversation. This is where the disconnect lies. It appears to me that instead of such an approach you've decided to troll me and, in so doing, are claiming some sort of victory. That's all well and good, and whatever gets you off, but I've been pretty clear as to what I have meant by my statement from the outset, and stand by it. If you want to make some claim about what I said which is outside that then you strawman away old bean, and enjoy your further trolling :ok:

MagnusP - yes, I'm aware of what they are supposed to do. The fact remains that justice needs to be seen to be done regardless of the system used to get to trial. It is because it hasn't been seen to be done (whether it has actually been done or not) that we have the mistrust we have. The fact that the Grand Jury system fails to indict on a tiny proportion of civilian case but on the majority of police cases (link provided previously) makes it look like a kangaroo court. Justice would be seen to be done more clearly if state employees were to go to trial anyway.

MagnusP
8th Dec 2014, 12:40
The problem, PTT, is that, without the Grand Jury system, decisions on indictment are made behind closed doors by those paid to indict. I'm not sure that transparency of the process and a full trial of the evidence would do anything other than make an accused person face trial twice, in effect.

The Grand Jury asks "Was this a crime in law?", and the trial process asks "Did this person do it?".

PTT
8th Dec 2014, 12:53
MagnusP - yeah, I get that. Do you see how it looks very much like a kangaroo court when this decision is made in secret (and I get why it is) and the disparity between civilian and police indictments is so great? Do you see how that is compounded when the public gets to see some evidence which is, on the face of it, pretty damning, but the Grand Jury says "no harm, no foul" and the public are not able to see why they said that?

Lonewolf_50
8th Dec 2014, 13:26
A need for instant obedience to the Police, on pain of injury or death for not obeying instantly
This is where the liars really need to get more careful.
Nowhere in the US is there a statutory nor regulatory line providing this condition, yet Capot arrives at this conclusion through pure fabrication.

There is still a civil/tort claim that ought to be made against the NYPD. The legal basis of "strict liability" will probably hold true for the accidental death of Mr Garner, much as in accidental deaths via other means in other circumstances. There is a greenback poultice to hand for the family of Mr Garner, on the basis of a wrongful death wherein the police department was directly involved through an action, be it responsible or negligent.

I hope their attorneys do their work well, and win the case.


Baby Bear, I do not see the crime as being serious enough to warrant so much police attention.
I don't either. Apparently, the governor of New York had issued written orders on cracking down on tax cheats. This guy was a minnow in a state and city full of whales, when it comes to tax cheats. Go after the real ones, who cheat in the millions.

As some previous posters have pointed out, without the inane tax code of the state of New York, this incident doesn't happen. An indirect cause, something like "supervisory error" found in a mishap investigation. It's the ripple effect of policies that sometimes have undesired results when they hit the real world.

LAST EDIT:
About the price of smokes. About ten years ago, before the first of two major tax increases on smokes across the board in this country, you could get a pack of smokes from behind the counter at a drug store or gas station for about 2.75 or $3.00, and you'd save a bit per pack when buying them by the carton.

I cannot currently find a pack of smokes for less than five bucks in any of the local vending establishments, unless the cheapie generic is what is I want, or if a coupon with a 50 or 75 cent discount is available.

Now, prices in NYC are higher for everything, but 15 bucks for a pack of smokes?
FFS, the gap between what it costs to make a pack of smokes and that price begs for a black market to emerge.
So it does.
If I may misquote Asterix the Gaul:
These New Yorkers are crazy!

MagnusP
8th Dec 2014, 14:28
PTT, the Grand Jury IS civilian. The Crown Office (for example) is not, in the sense you mean. However, there is still a public servant filter on whether something goes before a Grand Jury. At some point in any jurisdiction, there is a "kangaroo court", as you put it. Whether that's a Grand Jury of your peers, or a prosecuting service, they will decide whether there is to be an indictment. After all, if the GJ goes for indictment in the same way that a non-GJ prosecution would, are you demanding transparency, as you put it? Should there be an indictment, then the trial process would be public and transparent.

PTT
8th Dec 2014, 14:45
I know the Grand Jury is civilian, and I know that someone somewhere decides whether or not to prosecute. That's not the issue here, though. The issue is justice being seen to be done. A system where a closed session chooses to prosecute the vast majority of non-police but not prosecute the vast majority of police rightly comes under scrutiny when the apparent evidence is, on the face of it, pretty damning. Why does it do that? There are reasons why prosecutors may not particularly want to indict police, and there may well be excellent reasons in this particular case, but the fact is that the people who the law is supposed to serve and protect don't see those reasons and instead see a video of a policeman putting a guy in a chokehold, a bunch of his colleagues piling on him (someone else's words here) and the guy dying, with those who killed him not facing anything more than a closed session. That's not justice being seen to be done.

MagnusP
8th Dec 2014, 14:47
Ditto if the Crown Office (or equivalent) decide not to prosecute. I don't see you complaining about that.

PTT
8th Dec 2014, 14:50
A similar incident has not happened recently. I'd be happier if they did prosecute, personally, so that justice is seen to be done.

Secret sessions (of whatever stripe) which have an obvious bias towards police do not engender trust in the system.

chuks
8th Dec 2014, 16:29
You are on a slippery slope there, one that ends with "show trials."

The grand jury made its decision, deciding that there was nothing to prosecute about the death of Mr Garner on the local level. Of course there is an "obvious bias," but I bet that the people who served on that grand jury still think they made a relatively fair and unbiased decision.

That said, of course the dice are loaded against people who are in conflict with the system. It's the cops who are out there trying to hold the line, after all, not people such as Mr Garner. He was someone with a criminal record, not just for selling untaxed cigarettes but for such things as, yes, resisting arrest. His card had already been marked when the cops moved in on him.

That little race-baiting creep, the Reverend Al Sharpton, is going to use every bit of this unfortunate episode, what you could call at the very least a failure to deliver good law enforcement, to put himself forward. That wasn't some sort of petty criminal who died, but a father of six and some sort of secular saint. No, a martyr! Anyone who cannot see through the Reverend Al, well, they must have been dropped on their head as a baby.

Now the Feds will take a shot at it, in a way that does make a better fit with this not entirely stupid notion of "justice that is seen to be done." It will be interesting to see how that works out.

PTT, it's not adversarial to tell someone that they have real trouble understanding English? That's your idea of a conversation, is it? I don't think so!

Boudreaux Bob
8th Dec 2014, 17:18
Why no Media allowed in these Town Hall Meetings?

Why would the Federal DOJ be pushing such an Agenda as "White Privilege"?

The Department of Social Justice | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394165/department-social-justice-ryan-lovelace)

obgraham
8th Dec 2014, 17:54
In the Ferguson case, PTT's point is simply ignorant of the facts.

Thousands of pages of testimony to the grand jury were released to the public. Read a few of them, and it becomes very clear that the inconsistency of the "eyewitness" testimony is what led to the jury's decision. The race-baiters simply ignored all of this.

There was nothing at all secret about it. Unless perhaps you think that all the testimony should take place on national TV -- perhaps MSNBC or BET would suffice?

Armchairflyer
8th Dec 2014, 18:53
Besides, if I understand correctly, this jury decision was (mainly?) about the officer who applied the so-called "chokehold", and while I am rather underwhelmed by the way the arrest was apparently handled, especially given the "police staff to threat ratio", singling out this guy would IMHO be off the mark. Judging by the video, he certainly did not choke Garner to death, not even "indirectly", even though the press seems to concentrate on this move.

Would like to see a thorough investigation though why they keep applying pressure to his torso when he moans that he cannot breathe and whether they have been made aware how quickly this becomes a (potentially lethal) problem, especially for an asthmatic person.

John Hill
8th Dec 2014, 19:35
The senior officer present should be the one facing charges especially as they obviously allowed dog-piling on a man who was claiming he had difficulty in breathing. Is it too late to have that officer charged?

obgraham
8th Dec 2014, 19:40
Not gonna happen, John, as apparently the "senior officer" was a female, with a high pigment content.

John Hill
8th Dec 2014, 19:45
The system is totally munted.

chuks
8th Dec 2014, 20:27
You could call in some of your dependable friends to give the NYPD training in modern policing. I understand that the 5th Brigade did sterling work in Zimbabwe under their aegis.

PTT
8th Dec 2014, 20:58
chuks - I'd be happy with trials which showed that those who enforce the laws of the state are held to the same standards as those they apply those laws to. Secret sessions which acquit those same people at a far higher ratio than your average citizen does nothing for trust between law enforcement and people. We still do policing by consent, right?

I only said to you that you were having trouble comprehending English after I had already clarified. Seems to me that you were playing your game first there, chap.

obgraham - While I was actually referring to the Garner case it is pleasing that testimony was released in the Ferguson case.

Lonewolf_50
8th Dec 2014, 21:11
chuks - I'd be happy with trials which showed that those who enforce the laws of the state are held to the same standards as those they apply those laws to. Secret sessions which acquit those same people at a far higher ratio than your average citizen does nothing for trust between law enforcement and people.
These are not secret sessions.
EDIT:
The state's attorney is present, citizens are present, and the defendant's attorney is present.
This ^^ statement is innacurate. The Jury is instructed to ignore this statement. The court reporter is instructed to expunge this from the transcript. /End Edit.

This procedure isn't a trial. Get that, before you continue on. Part of what happens in a grand jury is a vetting process: should the state prosecute? Does the state have enough evidence to get a conviction on a charge? If they don't, why proceed?

PTT "Too see that justice is done."

Thanks, Mr Lynch Mob, you really don't understand the system of jurisprudence we use here.

The Grand Jury system is part of our system of jurisprudence, and has been for over two centuries. Maybe you need to be told a fundamental rule of how our system works.

The state has the burden of proof against any citizen in a trial. I was on a petit jury a few weeks ago. That's a jury where you go to a trial, there is a judge, there are attorneys in prosecution and defense, and the State must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that this person did in fact commit this offense against this statute of the Texas legal code.

He had already been before a grand jury. The judge, the defense, and the prosecution all addressed this point: a grand jury deciding in favor of the DA that this case needs to go ahead is no indication that the defendant is guilty. All three parties went to great pains to present, each from a slightly different point of view, what was expected of us as jurors: to only consider what is before us in that court.

This means that, once again, I sat on a jury listening to testimony and seeing evidence that
Wasn't
The
Whole
Story

That's another fact of the system of jurisprudence we have. We are only allowed to consider facts and evidence that are presented in the court, which due to rules of evidence is not necessarily the whole story, nor all of the pertinent facts.

That frustration that I experienced, twice that I have been empaneled as a juror, is no reason to junk the system of jurisprudence that we have.

OBTW:
We convicted the person of the felony for which he was charged, and we were appalled to find out after the trial was over, from the judge, that the two witnesses where were shown to be lying, on the stand, by the DA, were not going to be charged with perjury.
I cannot believe they did it, lied on the stand, but there you go, people do things that you don't expect.
As the judge put it: do we really want to spend our time and resources on these people for this -- noting the burden of proof required to convict on a perjury charge -- or do we have more pressing cases to deal with violent or more dangerous criminals?

Where were you, PTT, with your protest signs demanding that these law breakers, who lied under oath, should be charged so that justice could be seen to be done? You weren't there.

Your hyperbole and falsehood, that I am responding to, fails to account for what is, rather than what you wish to pretend it were. This puts you on the side of the lynch mobs, PTT.

There is an avenue to address the wrong done to Mr Garner (the accidental death is a wrong) in the civil courts. As I pointed out in a previous post, a lawsuit either has been or should be filed against the city of New York, or the borough where this took place, seeking damages for accidental death.

Whether criminal negligence charges ought to be filed seems to be something that the DA was trying to resolve. It may be that there are other charges not included in what went before the Grand Jury that the DA may yet file.
Don't know.
I realize that I am playing Monday Morning Quarterback here, but with the number of officers on site during this event, and the training police usually get, my instincts tell me that Mr Garner was not treated in a completely professional manner once subdued.
If I am wrong, so be it.

The red herring that has been provided by the lynch mobs of the internet age is that somehow, a choke hold/illegal procedure was the cause of this tragic loss of life. The evidence suggests that it was something else. Actually, as noted previously, a combination of other factors.

What disturbs some people, to include me, is that Mr Garner, once subdued, was in distress (due to a previous medical condition??) and the handling during this event and his distress -- for whatever reason -- was not responded to in a timely fashion nor in a suitable fashion.
What is the core issue here?
Training?
Local customs that may or may not align with training?
Attitudes in the police force?
Failure of the supervisory sorts in the PD?

Look at the basics of police work. Police are to control a situation. That's policing 101. In the process of controlling a situation, supplemental considerations (health of the one arrested) seem to have been overlooked in this case.

chuks
8th Dec 2014, 21:36
PTT, there you were, just having a conversation, when I went all adversarial on you, just because you were trying to give me some well-considered advice about my poor English.

Well, we older guys are like that, always flying off the handle. It's the reason why I had to sell my Mossberg 500.

Why, just the other day I was out there in front of the house telling some of those little punks, "Get off my lawn!" The weird thing is, we don't even have a lawn out front.

Have an apology from me, and an emoticon too::). Let me know when you get over that "burn" I gave you, and then we can have another "conversation."

obgraham
8th Dec 2014, 21:42
As I watch this thread follow the course of most others here, one thing stands out:

Most of you are professional aviators. Every time there is an aviation mishap (and they are bound to continue) threads immediately crop up on pprune declaring that the poster knows exactly what the cause was, who is responsible for it, and what should be done about it. Second thing is that a bunch of pilots chime in with how it was likely the fault of something or someone else, but not the pilot. The next posters add "don't be posting rubbish, I'm smarter because I will wait for the final investigation's results. (Which, incidentally, involve a lot of stuff that remains "confidential".) If the culprit pilot is not of our own ethnicity, that's a chance for more willywaving.

In my case, I'm not a professional pilot, but simply a hobbyist PPL. My professional life was in a different field, medicine. And there, the same thing happens. A medical mishap -- everyone else knows what an incompetent jagoff that doc was -- and docs all chime in "understanding how that case could have gone bad. It's another case of "there but for the grace of God, go I". Again, if the doc involved is of odd ethnicity, well obviously he wasn't trained right. The same as the aviation attitude, IMHO.

Now most of us are not professional police. (Well, Boudreaux says he was!). But we all seem to know exactly what happened, why it happened, and who should be hung out to dry. And once again, those foreign cops just aren't as good as our neighborhood copper.

Is there an answer? I doubt it. But we should once in a while be reminded that this stuff is still just internet bloviating. Maybe if we applied ourselves to solving our own professions' issues, we would develop some tolerance for others.

PTT
8th Dec 2014, 22:16
Lonewolf_50These are not secret sessions. The state's attorney is present, citizens are present, and the defendant's attorney is present.Well it would be impossible to have such a session without those involved being there, wouldn't it? The public is kept in the dark as to the session, though, and it is therefore secret; would you prefer it was referred to as a closed session? I'm sure you're well aware of this, though... Rule 6. The Grand Jury | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6)
Where were you, PTT, with your protest signs demanding that these law breakers, who lied under oath, should be charged so that justice could be seen to be done? You weren't there.Why is it you demand personal action the moment someone questions something? It's an interesting trait.
Your hyperbole and falsehood, that I am responding to, fails to account for what is, rather than what you wish to pretend it were. This puts you on the side of the lynch mobs, PTT. I'd appreciate it if you didn't strawman: I am not and have never been on the side of lynch mobs, I am simply suggesting that an open session would have been far more beneficial to the justice system and public order.

chuks - Aw, no need to feel guilty. I simply mistook your now-obvious malicious intent in misrepresenting my comments for an honest error of comprehension and the error is therefore mine for assuming you were actually interested in an honest conversation at all rather than playing a trolling game. No "burn" received, no apology necessary, but feel free to join a real conversation with the grownups when you've had enough trollolololololing :ok:

obgrahamBut we all seem to know exactly what happened, why it happened, and who should be hung out to dry.Really? Because I most certainly don't. That's pretty much my point: these closed sessions mean nobody knows what happened or why, hence the angst.

Tankertrashnav
8th Dec 2014, 22:31
Lonewolf 50 - I notice you used the term 'petit jury' there, which I hadnt heard before. 'Grand jury' is pretty well known as a term over here, even if its workings are not fully understood. So this is a straight question. Is a 'petit jury so-named because it has fewer members (twelve, I believe) than a grand jury? And is there a set number of members of a grand jury?

Flying Lawyer
9th Dec 2014, 00:13
Lonewolf_50

Is a defendant's attorney allowed to be present in all states?
I ask because I thought that in some states defence attorneys had to wait outside.
The Grand Jury system is part of our system of jurisprudence, and has been for over two centuries.True. It was imported from England. The system was created by Henry II in the 12th century and abolished in (I think) 1933.
Do all states still have a grand jury system?
NB: I am not arguing for or against. I have not given it sufficient though to express an opinion.

In the mid 80s, the then Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals said that District Attorneys had so much influence on grand juries that, by and large, they could get them to indict a ham sandwich.
Have things changed since then?

If a DA wished to do so (in a particular case or type of case) do you think it would it be possible to appear to go through the 'formalities' but influence a grand jury to vote “No bill,” or “Not a true bill”?

What disturbs some people, to include me, is that Mr Garner, once subdued …..I understand your concern about that aspect.
What clearly disturbs others (who have viewed the video and considered the City medical examiner's findings re cause of death) is what happened to Mr Garner whilst he was being "subdued" as you describe it.



TTN
Whilst Lonewolf is off line -

The term 'petit jury' is sometimes used in America to distinguish it from a grand jury.
Yes, a trial jury is smaller.
I'm open to correction but I think a grand jury consists of 16 - 23 people.
I don't know if the size varies from state to state, or between Federal and State proceedings.


FL

fitliker
9th Dec 2014, 03:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiOsPQjj4mM


This works really well against big guys. The MMA inside kick to the inner thigh will also take down a large person without getting too close.

Boudreaux Bob
9th Dec 2014, 11:50
Tasers work like Lightning too!

Ask the NYPD why none of their Officers had one that Day!

rgbrock1
9th Dec 2014, 13:08
chuks wrote:

Why, just the other day I was out there in front of the house telling some of those little punks, "Get off my lawn!" The weird thing is, we don't even have a lawn out front.

And after scolding the wayward punks did you then trod on down to the local park in your raincoat and fedora, to feed the pigeons? :}:E

chuks
9th Dec 2014, 13:39
I have my own particular place where I like to sit, feeding the pigeons. Everyone knows to give me my space there.

Sometimes those darn kids come past on their skateboards, listening to that weird music over headphones on drugs, probably. The kids, not the headphones, I mean, on the drugs, probably smoking that LSD again. Then they can't hear me shouting at them, which I find terribly annoying.

I do miss that Mossberg 500! The little devils are too fast to catch on those skateboards, so they just grin as they whiz past, frightening my pigeons. The police won't do a thing about all of this!

rgbrock1
9th Dec 2014, 13:49
In lieu of your Mossberg 500, chuks, you could always make use of a slingshot during your trips to the local park to feed Le Pigeon. Or, even better, I wonder what those punks, on drugs to boot, would think if they saw you in the park with a few Claymores scattered here and there? :eek::E

Lonewolf_50
9th Dec 2014, 18:26
Lonewolf_50
Is a defendant's attorney allowed to be present in all states? Good question, I suppose I'd have to look that up. My belief is that it is so, but it is possible that I am mistaken. Apparently, for this federal grand jury (http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/page1.shtml?location=jury:faq)what you say may take place.
I ask because I thought that in some states defence attorneys had to wait outside. It would take a little digging to find the answer to that.
In the mid 80s, the then Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals said that District Attorneys had so much influence on grand juries that, by and large, they could get them to indict a ham sandwich. My brother in law, a career police officer, who has to work with DA's and spent no small amount of time in court will argue that this judge is a moron. He had numerous:
Child abuse
Robbery (armed)
Murder
Breaking and Entering
Personal violence
cases that the DA never took to a grand jury.
Have things changed since then?
People still use hyperbole.
If a DA wished to do so (in a particular case or type of case) do you think it would it be possible to appear to go through the 'formalities' but influence a grand jury to vote “No bill,” or “Not a true bill”?
As you know from your years as a lawyer, there is as much art as science to the practice in the courtroom. Depending on the DA's objectives and skill, I imagine that what you suggest could happen.
[quote] TTN Whilst Lonewolf is off line -
The petit jury is the standard "twelve of your peers / fellow citizens who bothered to show up for the jury summons who were not gotten rid of during voir dire."
Grand Jury (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jlg01)
Petit Jury (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jzj02)
Per the above link, in Texas is appears that Grand Juries also comprise 12 people.

PTT:
You remain on the side of the lynch mobs, with your "and justice must be seen to be done."
That attitude is how the riots of 1992 got started.
Los Angeles thanks you and your fellow travelers.
You will note that the Jews of Los Angeles did not run riot after O.J. Simpson was acquitted after the trial where his ex wife and Mr Goldman were killed. What Mr Goldman's family, and I think the Brown family, did was use the system as it exists to attempt to get "justice" in a civil court. They were successful.
Was there a grand jury indictment of Mr Simpson before his trial?
No, but he was still charged.
http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/abolish.htm
A nice summary of how the system stands currently.

Any of you foreigners who don't care for it are kindly invited to mind your own business.
Or to Foxtrot Oscar.
Whichever gets the point across.

PTT
9th Dec 2014, 18:51
Lonewolf_50You remain on the side of the lynch mobs, with your "and justice must be seen to be done."You must be misunderstanding what I mean by "justice seen to be done". I don't mean "hang the guilty bastard", I mean that the evidence should be made public so that everyone can see why there is no indictment. I don't doubt that there would still be some people claiming some sort of cover-up, but those calls will have far less weight than when whatever has happened in that session actually is being covered up.
Any of you foreigners who don't care for it are kindly invited to mind your own business.
Or to Foxtrot Oscar. That old saw?
http://i.imgur.com/CA8cA.gif

Lonewolf_50
9th Dec 2014, 18:59
Lonewolf_50You must be misunderstanding what I mean by "justice seen to be done". I don't mean "hang the guilty bastard", I mean that the evidence should be made public so that everyone can see why there is no indictment. I don't doubt that there would still be some people claiming some sort of cover-up, but those calls will have far less weight than when whatever has happened in that session actually is being covered up. I am sorry, I don't accept you weasel words, nor your evasion. New York still has grand juries, which provide the functions called for.
If you don't care for that, don't live in New York.
Pennsylvania might be more your style.

As to "seeing justice done" you are invited to move to Missouri, in and around Jefferson. Just make sure that you over-insure any small business you set up.

PTT
9th Dec 2014, 19:08
Lonewolf_50 - What weasel words and evasion? I'm telling you exactly what I mean and you "don't accept" it? What on earth does that even mean? Are you suggesting that you know what I mean better than I do?
You can deny it all you like, but I have said to you what I mean and it stands.

Lonewolf_50
9th Dec 2014, 19:12
PTT, I'll reply via PM.

obgraham
9th Dec 2014, 19:15
I have a neighbor with one of those yappy little Chihuahua dogs. I go out to chat with Tim, and the little ba$tard grabs on to my pant leg and snarls. Kick him off, and he comes right back again, ad infinitum.

Lonewolf_50
9th Dec 2014, 20:19
Uh, now that we have drifted a bit from the original hairball in play, I'll offer a mea culpa for having been part of that drifting trend.
Back to the topic, if it isn't already the glue of a dead horse.
Also, nobody has yet been mortally insulting that I can see.

PTT
9th Dec 2014, 20:20
Indeed, on topic: the evidence should be made public so that everyone can see why there is no indictment. I don't doubt that there would still be some people claiming some sort of cover-up, but those calls will have far less weight than when whatever has happened in that session actually is being covered up.

Lonewolf_50
9th Dec 2014, 20:28
PTT, per your assertion:
Have you done your research and first learned how one conducts a grand jury in the state of New York? Have you bothered to learn what the rules are on the outcomes? Ya see, believe it or not, there are rules and laws that cover such things.
Really.

What you are demanding may not be yours to command.

Please do some research and tell us what you have learned. It's not hard to form an opinion from ignorance, as was done in italics in your post there.

Boudreaux Bob
9th Dec 2014, 20:40
Two seconds of Googling surfaced this bit of information.

Perhaps PTT can find a minute or two to read the content and thus fill in a large void in his knowledge about the New York Grand Jury System.

http://www.nyjuror.gov/pdfs/hb_grand.pdf

Tankertrashnav
9th Dec 2014, 20:43
Thanks for the explanation F-L and Lonewolf.

who were not gotten rid of during voir dire."

Well I only just got my head round petit/grand juries, and you chuck in a bit more French (Norman French, as it happens)!

Anyway I Googled that one and was surprised that it's a term we have as well, although I'd never heard it before. Obviously F-L will be familiar, as I'm sure he always tells the truth ;)

Gosh, a few more of these Q and A's, the appropriate number of dinners eaten and I reckon I'll be ready for a late career at the bar. After all, I'm nearly old enough to be a High Court Judge!

PTT
9th Dec 2014, 20:44
Yep, I took a look at this (which I linked to you in post 169): Rule 6. The Grand Jury | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6)
and also at this: New York State Unified Court System Grand Juror’s Handbook (http://www.nyjuror.gov/pdfs/hb_grand.pdf)
I'm aware of what the laws are regarding this insofar as they are covered in those documents.

I've not "demanded" anything, by the way. I've simply expressed an opinion that in some cases (such as this one) more public availability of the evidence would be in the better interests of justice being seen to be done.
There are, of course, reasons for secrecy. The NY Grand Juror's handbook I linked lists them clearly on page 7 and they are obviously good reasons when they apply. There appears to be no possibility, though, for assessment by a suitable person (a judge, perhaps) as to when they might not apply and secrecy should not be maintained in the interests of transparency.

Lonewolf_50
9th Dec 2014, 20:58
Criminal Justice System: How It Works | The New York County District Attorney's Office (http://manhattanda.org/criminal-justice-system-how-it-works?s=39)

PTT:
I am indebted to F-L for having raised the point about variation in practice between states and federal jurisdictions. Your link to the federal guidelines may or may not apply to the New York cases that are not federal cases, so the link above may be more helpful.

Beyond that, your opinion is irrelevant.

The lynch mob mentality that it takes to get on the outrage bus because the system is working as it is built disturbs me. (If you'd like a real mind bender, investigate the outrage over OJ Simpson having not been indicted by a grand jury -- the outrage being pedaled by some strict constitutionalists. Happy reading. )

You see, the garden variety outrage clowns are exposing their core perceptual problem: they do not see the officer as a fellow citizen.

The officer is a symbol of "the man" and even in the discussions on this less than erudite thread, you will find that like an aviation investigation, there are some issues here that cause concern that have Bloody Fork All to do with whether or not a grand jury returned an indictment.

They have to do with, among other things, procedure and why was the sergeant in charge on the scene not the posterboy / postergirl for this mess and Mr Garner's accidental death.

None of that has to do with reason, Mr PTT. It has to do with identity politics.
Please go back in this very thread and try to seek some insight on what may be behind that angle regarding the externals of this case.

The internals are, at a minimum, an accidental death has occurred and there is at least some reason to be critical of the police procedures involved.

None of that has to do with any requirement for a criminal charge.

If a large enough greenback poultice is applied to Mr Garner's family, will you finally opine that "justice has been done" or will your whinge continue?

PTT
9th Dec 2014, 21:05
Your link to the federal guidelines may or may not apply to the New York casesIndeed. That's why I linked to the New York State Garnd Juror's Handbook as well, and referred solely to that in the remainder of my post. I thank you for the further link, though.
Beyond that, your opinion is irrelevant. Then feel free to cease replying :ok:
they do not see the officer as a fellow citizen.They may not, but I think he is one, and one who is entrusted to uphold the law. To that end he should be held to at least the same standard as everyone else, but the fact remains that Grand Juries overwhelmingly choose to indict civilians but only rarely do so with cops.
there are some issues here that cause concern that have Bloody Fork All to do with whether or not a grand jury returned an indictment. I totally agree, but I would rather stick to the point being made.
The internals are, at a minimum, an accidental death has occurred and there is at least some reason to be critical of the police procedures involved.

None of that has to do with any requirement for a criminal charge. Again, I agree, but none of that has anything to do with the fact that justice is not being seen to be done.

Mr Chips
9th Dec 2014, 21:14
So are you suggesting that an officer go on trial just to satisfy the mob? Which officer? What offence? Even if this happened, the mob would claim that justice wasn't done.

The Grand jury said no crime. It ends there (or should in a civilised society)

Lonewolf_50
9th Dec 2014, 21:21
... but none of that has anything to do with the fact that justice is not being seen to be done.
I see that you prefer to side with the lynch mob.
So be it. You've made your bed, sleep well.
Your argument from ignorance is rejected.
The U.S. Attorneys Manual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Attorneys_Manual) states that prosecutors "must recognize that the grand jury is an independent body, whose functions include not only the investigation of crime and the initiation of criminal prosecution but also the protection of the citizenry from unfounded criminal charges" and that targets of investigations have the right to, and can, "request or demand the opportunity to tell the grand jury their side of the story." That consideration too is part of our JUSTICE system. Your decision to be willfully be blind to it in crafting your opinion, and the process that goes into it, is unfortunate.

PTT, I seem to recall that you are an aviator.
You are thus, I suspect, familiar with aviation mishap reports, but more importantly, the safety investigations undertaken. In the USN, we had a principle referred to as "privilege" when it came to statements made during the course of an aviation mishap investigation.

Oddly enough, our Supreme Court found something similar a necessity to get witnesses to come forth.
This is excerpted from a Wikipedia entry.
While court reporters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_reporter) usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_Court) in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Oil_Co._of_Cal._v._Petrol_Stops_Nort hwest&action=edit&redlink=1), 441
US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_441) 211 (1979). The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Burger and Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart) but concurred with the Court's opinion as to the importance and rationale of grand jury secrecy. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Powell) found that "if pre-indictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily"; "witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly"; and "there also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors". Further, "persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury [should] not be held up to public ridicule".
It appears that the officer in New York has been offered no such protection from the internet lynch mob, nor from the media.
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 US 677 (1958), permitted the disclosure of grand jury transcripts under certain restrictions: "a private party seeking to obtain grand jury transcripts must demonstrate that 'without the transcript a defense would be greatly prejudiced or that without reference to it an injustice would be done'" and must make its requests "with particularity". Further, First Amendment protections generally permit the witnesses summoned by a grand jury to discuss their testimony, although Dennis v. United States, 384 US 855 (1966), found that such public discussion permits release of the transcripts of their actual testimony.
The Jencks Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jencks_Act), 18 U.S.C. § 3500, requires the government to disclose to the defense any statements made by the accused to the grand jury, and, with respect to non-party witnesses, that after a witness has testified on direct examination at trial, any statement made to the grand jury by such witness be disclosed to the defense.
Note the consistency of the rulings: the intent is that the grand jury be able to find out facts, evidence (surely you'd be interested in that, eh?) and that the protections for one so charged have been raised decades ago.

You ask us to accept your argument from ignorance as weighing more than what our various jurists have arrived at without your help.

Sorry, no sale.

PTT
9th Dec 2014, 21:26
Mr Chips - no. I explained already what I suggested. I did originally suggest that going straight to trial would have been better but have more recently stated that simply showing what evidence it was which led to officer not being indicted would suffice. The important thing is transparency: for justice to be seen to be done.

I do agree that there would be some elements who would still claim some sort of cover-up, but "the mob" is not a single person with only one grievance (legitimate or otherwise), but a collection of individuals. Some of them will likely be content with transparency over secrecy where secrecy is not required for the reasons stated.

The Grand jury said no crime. It ends there (or should in a civilised society)That's what the sledovatel did in the Soviet Union.

Blind acceptance of closed sessions which have an obvious bias (rightly or wrongly) for a certain type of would-be defendant (police, in this case) is not something a civilised society where everyone is equal under the law would accept.

Mr Chips
9th Dec 2014, 21:30
Blind acceptance of closed sessions which have an obvious bias (rightly or wrongly) for a certain type of would-be defendant (police, in this case) is not something a civilised society where everyone is equal under the law would accept.

1. Demonstrate please how this specific Grand Jury was biased.
2. Explain how the UK CPS system is better.

PTT
9th Dec 2014, 21:49
1. I didn't say that a specific Grand Jury was biased, I said that Grand Juries show a bias. They indict the vast majority of civilians while not indicting anywhere near the same rate of police. There may be a damned good reason for that, but all we actually see is a bias rather than everyone being seen to be treated equally under the law.
2. I don't think I've suggested it is.

PTT
9th Dec 2014, 21:57
Lonewolf_50 - once more, I am not with any "lynch mob". Your continued assertion of this blatant falsehood is nonsensical.

The rest of your post is simply reiterating one of the reasons for secrecy which were laid out in the link I provided. I agree with those reasons and have said as much, but there appears to be no possibility for assessment by a suitable person (a judge, perhaps) as to when those reasons might not apply and secrecy should not be maintained in the interests of transparency.

Lonewolf_50
9th Dec 2014, 22:14
The rest of your post is simply reiterating one of the reasons for secrecy which were laid out in the link I provided. I agree with those reasons and have said as much, but there appears to be no possibility for assessment by a suitable person (a judge, perhaps) as to when those reasons might not apply and secrecy should not be maintained in the interests of transparency. I see, you have now arrived at
"we should have a rule except when it isn't convenient to have a rule."

Are you sure you aren't with the lynch mobs, PTT? :confused: Such is their attitude as well.
I said that Grand Juries show a bias.
And I point out that such a generalization is dangerous to make. I think I understand what was behind that claim, however.
They indict the vast majority of civilians while not indicting anywhere near the
same rate of police.
Your reason to arrive at the distinction is ... what? Grand Jury, gotten together to consider evidence. I would think that with your normal demands for same, you'd be a promoter of a body that gathers to consider evidence before moving forward with an action against a citizen.
What has happened to your basic principle, PTT?
There may be a damned good reason for that, but all we actually see is a bias rather than everyone being seen to be treated equally under the law.
That is because you choose to see that.
Your bias is noted.
Argument from ignorance again rejected.

Note: Thought experiment. What is the difference in opportunity between the classes of people you have put into consideration?

Second note: this case to me points to something far more troubling than an officer needing to be charged criminally (and made a SCAPEGOAT), or not, who is a member of the NYPD.

From where I sit, and when considering the response of multiple officers and a supervisor on the scene, there is a potential problem here in both procedures and attitudes (not to mention that c**t of a governor and his precious tobacco tax) that using a particular patrolman as a scapegoat might allow to go unresolved. There might not be too, however, an investigation into same would be of interest (I hope) to the taxpayers of New York.

Put on your aviation mishap investigation cap: are there systemic issues, attitudes, and norms that influence how this whole event went down?

Grand Jury has BFA to do with that.

As before, I sincerely hope that a civil case is filed, and won, on behalf of Mr Garner and his family. My impression, (and if I am wrong, so be it) is that some links in this mishap chain were not broken, so the mishap occurred, and thus a wrong was done to Mr Garner.

Mr Chips
9th Dec 2014, 22:15
So the alleged bias of grand juries is totally irrelevant in this case. Perhaps you could stop going on about it.

Grand Jury convened, reviewed evidence, did not indict. Simple.

You suggest it is a flawed system, but admit that the UK system of the CPS is no better.

chuks
9th Dec 2014, 22:34
" ... would someone mind holding my custard?" That's Latin, by a juvenile. Something like that, anyway. Educated, me.

My crystal ball is clearing ... I see a judge, a judge deciding that a grand jury transcript, after a decision unpopular with the sans-culottes, should still be kept secret.

Just then someone starts whining piteously about how the decisions of "a judge, perhaps," reviewing a grand jury decision, should be reviewed by "a suitable person."

Comes the hour, comes the man! Yes, a man of God, the Reverend Al Sharpton! Friend to Presidents and pretend rape victims the world over!

"Reverend Al! Put that Magic Prayer Towel down for a moment and skim this transcript. Then tell us in your own words why this judge was wrong to uphold the grand jury decision not to avenge the murder most foul of a father of 12 who was shot down in cold blood while proudly showing Officer Mulcahy the new AK-74 that his aged mother had just given him as a graduation present for finishing Sixth Grade."

Pappa Smurf
10th Dec 2014, 00:13
I just saw the video for the first time.
Surely its put on .Do cops really carry on like that when half the police force are there.
He could have made it easier on himself and reached in his pocket,thus making it a quick death with 57 bullets.
fking unreal

rh200
10th Dec 2014, 00:28
That's what the sledovatel did in the Soviet Union.

Utopian [email protected] The system has more checks and balances than you can poke a stick at. The problem is people playing politics.

I said that Grand Juries show a bias.

And as I showed before, in a reasonably functioning system you make expect bias, that is not necessarily a bad thing. It may actually be reflecting the system is working as intended.

If you think there's a negative bias because of nefarious reasons, put your cards on the table.

I know before we said that the grand jury system can be thought of as a kind of course filter, but there some other effects that need to be kept in mind. One neds to keep in mind attitudes, society development over time and the effects that it has on systems.

In some quarters I understand the original purpose of the grand jury was supposed to be to help stop maloucouis prosecutions. A perfectly reasonable assumption considering the time period and political appointees. The question is how does that manifest itself in modern society and the media.

Where once a prosecutor might say, nope nothing to see here, move on, they may well say, to hot a potato and hand ball it to the grand jury. There are always seveal ways to look at the system, and all systems have compromises.

The grand jury is not a trial, its only a means to see if it may even be worth going to a trial.

As for secrecy, frankly in a political charged system as this, would you really want it known that you served on the grand jury that came to these conclusions. If as a witness that lives in a neighbor hood would you really want to be known that you actually changed your testimony and cleared the white guy?

Flying Lawyer
10th Dec 2014, 01:16
Lonewolf_50My brother in law, a career police officer …… etc Regardless of what your police officer brother-in-law claims to know, or his opinions, I have never heard nor read any informed opinion suggesting that the judge's assertion wasn't fair comment, although obviously not literally true.People still use hyperbole. They certainly do, as several posts on both sides of the debate in this thread demonstrate. Any of you foreigners who don't care for it are kindly invited to mind your own business.
Or to Foxtrot Oscar.
Whichever gets the point across.Thank you for your kind invitation, but I'll continue to post until the Mods determine otherwise. I also respect the right of non-Brits to comment upon British matters.
I acknowledge that it can sometimes be frustrating. eg The small but well-known group of extreme right wing American posters in Jetblast often describe a Britain which is completely different from the country in which I have lived all my life and habitually reject any attempt to explain where their impressions are inaccurate. An international forum inevitably has strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I think the former outweigh the latter.

TTN
Yes, we do have a voire dire process.
In England it most commonly refers to a procedure whereby a trial Judge decides (if there is a dispute) whether one side (usually the prosecution) should be permitted to adduce evidence which the other side argues is inadmissible. The jury is not present when the Judge is referred to the evidence, hears arguments and makes a decision, for obvious reasons.
In the United States, it is used in such circumstances but also refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. We do not have an equivalent procedure. In exceptional circumstances, potential jurors are asked specific questions before they are selected (or excused from serving on that jury) but the questions are asked by the Judge. The advocates are not permitted to question them.Obviously F-L will be familiar, as I'm sure he always tells the truth. ;) I have never posted anything which I do not know or believe to be true, if that's what you mean. When I believe something is true but am not sure, I always make that clear.

-----------

As several American posters have pointed out, non-Americans are not as familiar with the Grand Jury system as you are. Please would you explain something I don't understand but would like to:
As I understand it, there is no Judge present to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly.
Is that correct?
If so, why?

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I repeat that I am not suggesting that the Grand Jury system is any better or worse than the UK procedure.

BobTasers work like Lightning too!
Ask the NYPD why none of their Officers had one that Day!I'm not familiar with the restrictions on the user of Tasers in New York City but, in the UK, I suspect that a police officer who fired a Taser in the circumstances seen in the video might have considerable difficulty justifying doing so. The nationally agreed Police standard is that the use of Tasers is restricted to situations where police officers are facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they need to use force to protect the public, themselves or the subject.

galaxy flyer
10th Dec 2014, 01:27
The nationally agreed Police standard is that the use of Tasers is restricted to situations where police officers are facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they need to use force to protect the public, themselves or the subject.

We have a similar standard, our tools just have a certain definitiveness missing in the TASER.

GF

Boudreaux Bob
10th Dec 2014, 03:18
Last time I checked NYC is not in the UK.

Likewise, the Laws and Theory of Policing vary between the two places.

We brought in Tasers to replace Night Sticks as the Fluffs were complaining about Physical Violence and it was seen an attractive alternative to Mace (Tear Gas), Pepper Spray, and other Non-Lethal or Lethal force devices.

An interesting thought is every Police Officer has to experience being shocked by a Taser as part of their Training yet they are not required to endure being struck by a Night Stick which should define the Taser as being a lesser level of Force.

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 07:17
Lonewolf_50I see, you have now arrived at
"we should have a rule except when it isn't convenient to have a rule." Nope. The rule (imo) should be disclosure unless disclosure would violate one of the reasons laid out in the document linked or the judge decides there is a sound reason. There are plenty of "exception" clauses in law like that.
I point out that such a generalization is dangerous to make.Any use of statistics is, by definition, a generalisation. There's nothing wrong with using data to come to conclusions about a general situation.
That is because you choose to see that.
Your bias is noted. I don't "choose" to see it, the difference is blatant. That you choose not to see it is interesting, though.
The rarity of a federal grand jury not indicting, visualized - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/24/the-rarity-of-a-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/)
The Grand Jury In The Eric Garner Chokehold Case Was Especially Unlikely To Indict | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/eric-garner-chokehold-staten-island-grand-jury-indict/)
It?s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson?s Just Did | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/)
Allegations Of Police Misconduct Rarely Result In Charges | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/allegations-of-police-misconduct-rarely-result-in-charges/)

I've already said that there may be damned good reasons for this bias. The fact is that we simply don't know. Question: what "good reason" could there be which requires secrecy?

Mr ChipsSo the alleged bias of grand juries is totally irrelevant in this case. Perhaps you could stop going on about it.If you accept that Grand Juries show a bias (and I do not mean it in a pejorative sense) then how is that irrelevant in this case, particularly where it pertains to everyone being equal under the law?
You suggest it is a flawed system, but admit that the UK system of the CPS is no better.Two wrongs don't make a right.

chuks - yep, such decisions should be open to appeal. I see no issue with that.

rh200The system has more checks and balances than you can poke a stick at.Overall it does, of course. In this particular instance the parallels are certainly there.And as I showed before, in a reasonably functioning system you make expect bias, that is not necessarily a bad thing. It may actually be reflecting the system is working as intended.I absolutely agree, and have said as much before. Should that bias not be explained, though, so it can be seen that everyone is equal under the law? Without such an explanation all that is seen is that the police are indicted far less often than civilians. Visible discrepancies of that sort aren't particularly good for getting people to trust the law and the system unless they are explained.
I know before we said that the grand jury system can be thought of as a kind of course filter, but there some other effects that need to be kept in mind. One neds to keep in mind attitudes, society development over time and the effects that it has on systems.Like I said, it's an almost-useless filter. 11 "no indictment" results from 160,000+ cases is hardly worth having and almost certainly costs more to put in place than it does save time and money. That said, I see the reason for having it and I imagine those 11 people were grateful for it. I understand there is a saying over there (unless I have misread) that you can indict a ham sandwich (http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/indict_a_ham_sandwich/)...
I suggest that if the system has become anachronistic within the society it serves then the system needs to change.
As for secrecy, frankly in a political charged system as this, would you really want it known that you served on the grand jury that came to these conclusions.If I were able to explain my reasons then I'd have no problem with it at all.
If as a witness that lives in a neighbor hood would you really want to be known that you actually changed your testimony and cleared the white guy?Witness protection is one good reason for secrecy which has been cited. Are you suggesting this is what actually happened? How do you know? If this hasn't happened in this case then would you accept that this is not a good reason for secrecy in this case?

MagnusP
10th Dec 2014, 08:16
Question: what "good reason" could there be which requires secrecy?

Answer: evidence which the Grand Jury considers, but which might be inadmissible in a trial, would be out in the public domain and could prejudice the outcome of the trial.

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 08:26
PTT, you seem to be arguing for something, with no factual basis for doing that.

One could just as easily invert your claim of "bias" by stating that the way a grand jury goes along with the prosecution shows that cases are only presented to the jury that have a fairly strong basis in fact. Really, without any background knowledge, either claim could be correct.

In both of these recent cases there's a strong emotional basis for wanting to see them tried: police killed unarmed blacks. You seem to want to see the (presumably) fact-based decisions reached by the grand juries over-ridden by a decision to prosecute, or at least see them undermined by discarding this worthwhile principle of keeping deliberations secret, all of this just to satisfy the mob. Then you argue (on what basis?) that, half the time, the mob should just turn and go home rather than rioting, having been thrown some sop.

Gee, I don't know about that. Mobs might not be as respectful of due process as you seem to think. Which is more fun: looting a liquor store, or going home cold sober? I think the mob might just want to run rampant any old how, even if you want to stack a few extra blocks atop what we already have, perhaps by having a judge review grand jury decisions.

What happens when the judge then fails to make the mob happy? You want to set another judge over the first one then? You know, to keep trying until those folks out in the street are made happy enough to go back to their hovels? Whatever happened to reading them the Riot Act?

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 09:12
MagnusP - what trial? There is no indictment so there is no trial to prejudice.

chuks - I'm arguing the fact that there is a bias and that we don't know why it is there, and that looks bad. I'm not saying it is inherently bad but that there may be a good reason just as well as there may be a bad reason for it.You seem to want to see the (presumably) fact-based decisions reached by the grand juries over-ridden by a decision to prosecute, or at least see them undermined by discarding this worthwhile principle of keeping deliberations secretI don't want the decision overturned at all, I want it to be able to be scrutinised unless there is a very good reason not to. How would scrutinisation undermine a fact-based decision? While this is not science, constant scrutiny of what we determine to be facts is the basis of the scientific method.
What happens when the judge then fails to make the mob happy? You want to set another judge over the first one then?How do appeals normally work in the US?Then you argue (on what basis?) that, half the time, the mob should just turn and go home rather than rioting, having been thrown some sop.

Gee, I don't know about that. Mobs might not be as respectful of due process as you seem to think. Which is more fun: looting a liquor store, or going home cold sober? I think the mob might just want to run rampant any old how, even if you want to stack a few extra blocks atop what we already have, perhaps by having a judge review grand jury decisions.
Actually I don't think of "the mob" as some amorphous mass of lawbreakers who all think the same in the way you appear to. They are a bunch of individuals with different reasons for doing what they are doing. Some are doing it as a cover for being able to carry out criminal actions, certainly, but others are there because they actually think there has been some sort of miscarriage of justice, and it is those people who may well be mollified. If they are then that's much less cover for the previous sort who are merely looting because they want to.

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 09:56
You, nor I, have no real idea why the decisions of grand juries fall as they do, when they do exhibit a "bias." Is that bias due to prejudice, though, to not judging the facts fairly, or is it down to circumstance, impartially judging cases brought by the state, strong ones almost always supported by facts? Who can say, given that a key element is the secrecy surrounding their deliberations?

PTT, you are thus reduced to arguing very simply that "that [bias] looks bad." Yes, and? That's no good reason to go about prettifying it, is it? You really suggest putting a cop on trial just to make it look better, and never mind what the grand jury decided?

That could be you next, assuming that you are white and should have caused harm to some unfortunate black person. Then it might "look bad" to let you go, especially when the black community, led by the Reverend Al Sharpton, might be up in arms over the way you harmed one of theirs. I bet you would then discover a very sudden respect for the current way that grand juries go about their work!

You have a very weak argument here, not that you should uncharacteristically stop pushing it on us.

Tankertrashnav
10th Dec 2014, 10:26
F-L Thanks for your explanation of voire dire, and just for clarity, I really am sure you always tell the truth!

(I exclude those occasions when one's other half asks for an opinion on a new hairdo or does her bum look big in this, etc, when I've found that being economical with the truth is usually the soundest policy!)

Flying Lawyer
10th Dec 2014, 11:34
Bob Last time I checked ...
I'm very surprised you had to check that.
How long ago? ;)

-----

'Secrecy'
Under a now abolished procedure, Magistrates Courts (the lowest level court in England) used to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to commit a defendant for trial on indictable offences. The Court was not required to give, and did not give, the reason(s) for its decision beyond saying sufficient/not sufficient evidence. Although the hearings were not held in secret, the press were not permitted to publish anything more than the bare fact that the case was/was not sent for trial in the Crown Court unless a defendant waived that right. It was extremely rare for a defendant to do so. Save in truly exceptional circumstances, any competent lawyer strongly advised against it for the reason already given by MagnusP.
I can't say that it never happened but I have never known of a defendant who not sent for trial wishing that he had waived his right nor, as far as I can remember, was there a call for the rule to be changed.

Over the years, I have read several informed opinions by American jurists and attorneys arguing in favour of and against the Grand Jury system and, in many instances, those on each side of the divide have suggested various reforms. The most frequent criticisms were that the normal rules of evidence do not apply, that prosecutors have free rein to say what they wish to the jury, that there is no judge present to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly, that defence lawyers are not permitted to ask question witnesses, and only the prosecutor is permitted to make submissions to the jury. I cannot remember reading any of them arguing that the evidence presented to the jury should be published. I can readily understand why.

TTN
I like to think that even the good Lord would be prepared to overlook the exception you mention.
I hope so. :)

chuks PTT - You really suggest putting a cop on trial just to make it look better, and never mind what the grand jury decided? I would not wish be misunderstood as agreeing with the views expressed by either you or PTT but in this thread you are IMHO as bad as each other, albeit for different reasons. PTT has a very unusual debating style with which I very rarely make the effort to engage but he did not say that, nor has he suggested it.

FL

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 12:28
chuksYou, nor I, have no real idea why the decisions of grand juries fall as they do, when they do exhibit a "bias." Is that bias due to prejudice, though, to not judging the facts fairly, or is it down to circumstance, impartially judging cases brought by the state, strong ones almost always supported by facts? Who can say, given that a key element is the secrecy surrounding their deliberations?I don't know the reason and have never claimed to. I reason may be very good indeed, but we don't know. All we know is that there is a bias.you are thus reduced to arguing very simply that "that [bias] looks bad."Actually that's been my point for a few pages now: justice is not seen to be done whether it is actually done or not.Yes, and? That's no good reason to go about prettifying it, is it?I certainly wouldn't call a default of transparency "prettifying". I'd call it an open justice system.You really suggest putting a cop on trial just to make it look better, and never mind what the grand jury decided? As F-L states, I've said no such thing.

Flying Lawyer - I absolutely agree with what Magnus said, but in cases where no indictment is brought and where there is to be no trial why would there be a problem with a default of transparency with oversight to ensure the normal reasons given for needing secrecy are not applicable? Canada's preliminary hearings are, I believe, open to journalists but routinely ban publication, I suspect for the reason Magnus stated.

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 12:54
Someone who " ... did originally suggest that going straight to trail [in the case against the police involved in the death of Mr Garner] would have been better," (PTT's words) might be seen to be suggesting that "putting a cop on trial just to make it look better" (my words) is his preference. That's the way I read it, anyway.

PTT wants justice to be seen to be done; now he's concerned with Justicia's makeup and hairdo, not with the way she goes about her business, as in the quote above.

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 13:16
chuks - yes, I did say it originally but have since changed my opinion on that, as I said in the bit of that post (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/552339-maybe-not-just-guns-blame-10.html#post8776086) you failed to quote.

Flying Lawyer
10th Dec 2014, 13:25
PTTI absolutely agree with what Magnus said You do now.


chucksnow he's concerned with Justicia's makeup and hairdo, not with the way she goes about her businessAs I said in my previous post, IMHO you are as bad as each other in this thread.

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 13:35
I did then. I specified cases with no indictment.

Charley
10th Dec 2014, 13:44
But how do you know ahead of time that there's not going to be an indictment?

How do you remove what, in your opinion, is a veil of secrecy before you can determine if that secrecy is needed or not?

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 13:48
You release after the fact, for review.

Bronx
10th Dec 2014, 14:24
PTT

for review

A review in this context usually means a formal assessment or reconsideration of a decision. Is that what you mean or do you mean an opportunity for the public to read all about it and say what they think, what they would have done etc if they had been on the Grand Jury?

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 14:35
I suppose that I should try to behave better then!

Part of it here is that sometimes this feels like "trying to frisk a wet seal," so that I want to pin someone or other down who insists on dancing around his point. Then things may get a bit tedious, yes.

For instance, we have now moved, inch by inch, from someone having originally said something to his having "said no such thing" to, finally, "[Y]es I did say it originally, but .... " Okay, he has changed his mind. That was what I was asking about, since there was no real question in my mind about what he had originally said.

I don't have a problem with arguing some point or other. Sometimes I make an ass of myself doing that, getting it wrong on points of fact or style or both, but that's life. When I find myself being told, however, that some point was never made, that perhaps I just suffer from poor reading comprehension, Ah!

So I suppose we are all on the same page now with regard to the grand jury system in the State of New York: it functions; it is obviously biased but reasonably fair; it could benefit from being given more openness, so that "justice may be seen to be done." I don't think it's going to be changed any time soon, probably down to its functionality on the one hand, and institutional resistance to change on the other hand.

Certainly I have been moved by what I have been told here, moved from my starting position, one that I now see was mistaken: that Mr Garner pretty much was the author of his own demise by fighting with the police while in a state of poor health. I now believe that the tactics the police used in arresting him could have led to his death by asphyxia, and that that's unacceptable.

That still leaves me very, very far from whatever it is that old scallywag, the Reverend Al Sharpton wants us to believe. (Whatever that is, it probably shifts from day to day as the Reverend Al tries to stay ahead of the mob he's pretending to lead. Anyone who thinks I am being unfair to a man of the cloth, just Google "Tawana Brawley" to see him in action. Al's changed his look, but I don't think he's changed his plan of action.)

It will be very interesting to see what happens next, after the US Department of Justice probe of this incident.

Boudreaux Bob
10th Dec 2014, 14:43
FL,

I try to be sure of my facts before opining.:E

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 14:53
PTT

A review in this context usually means a formal assessment or reconsideration of a decision. Is that what you mean or do you mean an opportunity for the public to read all about it and say what they think, what they would have done etc if they had been on the Grand Jury?The latter, should people wish to do so, certainly.

Flying Lawyer
10th Dec 2014, 14:53
chuks Part of it here is that sometimes this feels like "trying to frisk a wet seal," so that I want to pin someone or other down who insists on dancing around his point. Then things may get a bit tedious, yes.Fair comment.
I hadn't heard that expression before - but I'll probably use it in some context in the future. :)

Bob
Very wise. ;)

chuks
10th Dec 2014, 15:06
That comes from "Pennzoil vs. Texaco."

Pennzoil: "Dealing with Texaco is like trying to frisk a wet seal."

Texaco: "Trying to deal with Pennzoil is like trying to frisk an oily seal."

Mr Chips
10th Dec 2014, 22:19
PTT I am still confused by this whole bias thing. Are you aware that each grand jury is made up of different people? This the alleged bias of any previous grand jury is utterly irrelevant in this instance.

This grand jury chose to not indict on the evidence presented in this case.

Frankly, judging by the fallout from the Mark Duggan inquest I doubt that any amount of transparency would satisfy the mob...

Lonewolf_50
10th Dec 2014, 22:46
F-L: let us accept at face value the criticism in detail, enumerated as you list. When all is said and done what happens?
As you noted previously "bill" or "no bill" is found. (Yes, there are other possible permutations, but that's the general case).

Either an indictment is returned, and the person has his day in court with his attorney etcetera
or
no indictment is returned and there is no need to go to court. The DA is told to Foxtrot Oscar and go bother someone else.

Hey, look at what happened here.
A citizen who happens to be a police officer in New York was the beneficiary of due process of law. The Grand Jury process is part of the process.
WTF are people bitching about, eh?

A panel of citizens is sitting there (citizens also sit on a petit jury) to review the evidence. In our system, the involvement of citizens is integral to the justice system in the first place, hence juries drawn from a pool of citizens.
You mention the lack of a judge. Would I be more comfortable with a judge in the room? Personal opinion? Yes.

Why? I base this on my experience as a juror, and on my experiences in the UCMJ both when acting as a summary court martial and when involved as a member of the court martial (more or less as a juror). Having a judge who knows WTF the law is in detail was extremely helpful in terms of being clear on what one should and shouldn't, as well as can or can't do.

As this proceeding, the grand jury, isn't a trial but is more of a fact finding body ... what, then, is all the fuss about?

Even in trials -- see OJ Simpson trial, see the trial on the Rodney King Beatings -- justice is frequently NOT SEEN TO BE DONE" and grand juries have BFA to do with that.

Somehow, our system manages to get along. I have already explained how I see the similarity between this tool and how the concept of privilege in aviation safety investigations aids and abets the FINDINGS OF FACT in a given case.
That's rather the point, isn't it? Look at the evidence (or if you have to issue a load of subpoenas, look for the evidence) rather than simply listen to the shouting of the lynch mob as they demand "justice" whilst choking on the smoke from the torches, and poking one another in the ear with the pitchforks.

For me, this horse is dead.

For you, F-L, I appreciate the questions you asked that got me looking into the variations in practice, which broadened my understanding between state and federal jurisdictions which I hadn't appreciated previously. Since you are a lawyer, and you were asking questions, I took the hint about "a lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to already." ;)
For that alone I am glad to have participated in this discussion.
Again, thank you. And no, for the record, I don't wander over to UK political discussions and tell your lot how to run your country.

As for the rest, John Hill gets an A- as his score for a very well played trolling event.
Bites aplenty on the bait, including mine. Well done. :ok:

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 22:52
Mr Chips - indeed they all are different people, yet there is an overall bias from the summation of Grand Juries decisions as a whole.
As a parallel (which you will doubtless reject on some basis, but then all analogies fail at some point when you stretch them far enough), all 6-sided dice are different dice, yet they all average 3.5 over a large enough number of rolls unless they are loaded dice. On a very large sample of all Grand Juries they, on average, indict almost everyone who is a civilian but do not have anywhere near the same indictment rate for police: the dice are loaded in the police's favour. That may be for a very good reason, but we don't know that reason so all it looks like is that the police get the loaded dice while everyone else gets the normal ones. It may well be that far more police go to Grand Jury so that they are seen to be held accountable, resulting in weaker cases going forward and fewer indictments. That would make sense if they were seen to be held accountable but they aren't because it is secret. Conversely, it could be because it's not in a prosecutor's interests to indict police with whom he has a working relationship - note that I am not suggesting this is the case, simply that it is a possibility which I personally doubt.
This grand jury chose to not indict on the evidence presented in this case.Absolutely. Why not? Was it due to evidence which would have been applied to the same standard against a civilian who had done the same thing, or was it for some other reason? If the former and that evidence was made public then that question would go away for many people.
Frankly, judging by the fallout from the Mark Duggan inquest I doubt that any amount of transparency would satisfy the mob...Another one with the view that "the mob" is an amorphous single entity. It's not. While I absolutely agree that some of them would do what they did anyway, others may well not have.

Mr Chips
10th Dec 2014, 23:27
Priceless. All grand juries are biased, but all mobs are different.

I see there was a protest at a West London shopping centre today. Bet that made waves in NYC.... Interestingly, the calm and reasonable mob - sorry, group of individuals - assaulted security staff at this private property and some were arrested.

I note that you haven't at any time suggested what offence you think may have been committed in law and by which officer/s......

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 23:36
All grand juries are biased, but all mobs are different.Neither of those clauses are what I said.
I note that you haven't at any time suggested what offence you think may have been committed in law and by which officer/s......Because I've no idea whether they have or not.

Mr Chips
10th Dec 2014, 23:41
Neither of those clauses are what I said.

yet there is an overall bias from the summation of Grand Juries decisions as a whole.

Another one with the view that "the mob" is an amorphous single entity. It's not. While I absolutely agree that some of them would do what they did anyway, others may well not have.

Its amazing how often different people misunderstand or misinterpret what you apparently write....

PTT
10th Dec 2014, 23:48
Its amazing how often different people misunderstand or misinterpret what you apparently write....You're telling me. It's like people are deliberately trying to rewrite my arguments to fit what they want them to be.

"yet there is an overall bias from the summation of Grand Juries decisions as a whole" is not the same as "All grand juries are biased". The overall set of Grand Juries' decisions shows a bias. This does not necessarily mean any particular individual Grand Jury can necessarily be viewed as biased because they are all different with different people serving on them. I will reiterate: I do not necessarily mean bias pejoratively.
To illustrate with dice again, we know that the mean of any large enough set of dice rolls will be 3.5 (within variance). If we continually roll lots of dice and the mean is significantly different to that then we can reasonably say that there is a bias in the dice, but we can't reasonably pick out any one die and say it is biased. The only way to assess which particular ones are biased is to roll them individually lots of times.

"Another one with the view that "the mob" is an amorphous single entity. It's not. While I absolutely agree that some of them would do what they did anyway, others may well not have." is not the same as "all mobs are different.". Mobs consist of individuals who will react differently to different situations. As it happens I do think mobs are largely different (although often characterised by the same traits), but that is not linked to the previous statement.

419
11th Dec 2014, 00:07
If a grand jury decides that there is not enough evidence to proceed with a trial and the case is dismissed, can they reconvene at a later date and vote again should further evidence come to light or is it a case of once they've voted, that decision is final?

If it's the case that the original decision can be overturned should it be warranted, that would be a good reason as to why the reasons for that original decision should be kept secret so that they can't influence any potential jurors in subsequent legal proceedings.

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 01:03
The Grand Jury is not a Trial and the Defendant does not have to enter a Plea.

If the Grand Jury or a different Grand Jury wishes to...it can take up the matter again.

There is no Double Jeopardy issue in such a situation.

419
11th Dec 2014, 01:10
Thanks BB.
That could well explain why they keep the reasons for their decisions secret so that it couldn't influence a trial (or even cause a mistrial) in the future.

fitliker
11th Dec 2014, 01:22
Some people like to pick fights and then complain when they do not win.
They used to call them sore losers.
I wonder what the politically correct term for sore loser is :)

con-pilot
11th Dec 2014, 02:14
I wonder what the politically correct term for sore loser is

A Democrat? :E

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 02:54
419,

Sometimes the Grand Jury is actually an investigative body and seeks evidence thus the need for secrecy.

I have worked on cases that involved a Federal Grand Jury and even my Bosses were not briefed into the Case as it was being controlled by the Federal District Attorney.

We had a process whereby Management could be briefed but it required some legal coordination for that to happen.

Flying Lawyer
11th Dec 2014, 03:05
Lonewolf_50

Thank you for your detailed response.
Interesting discussion. :ok:
FWIW, having begun with an open mind, I've come to the conclusion during this thread that the Grand Jury system is no better no worse than ours, just different.

We'll never know whether the grand jury's decision in this particular case would have been the same if the DA hadn't, for some reason I don't understand, focused upon the actions of the one police officer.


PTTYou're telling me. It's like people are deliberately trying to rewrite my arguments to fit what they want them to be.

With occasional exceptions, that is not how it appears to me.

fitliker
11th Dec 2014, 03:42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNfhsUcyld0


Bon appetite Con :)

rh200
11th Dec 2014, 04:40
We'll never know whether the grand jury's decision in this particular case would have been the same if the DA hadn't, for some reason I don't understand, focused upon the actions of the one police officer.

Its all very complicated, somebody mentioned a black female sargent in charge.

Imagine for a minute that is correct, and the grand jury found her guilty as being the one in charge.

In the publics mind, a black guy on video being choke by a whit guy whilst he is screaming he can't believe. And our racist (sarcasm) society indicts a black female police officer.

It would be a double banger, black and female.:p

You wonder why th prosecutor concentrated on one, it perhaps comes down to what we said about consequences and perceived bias.

In normal circumstances it maybe the prosecutor looked at the whole thing and said, nothing to see here. But due to political/social pressure was forced to throw something at the grand jury. Who knows.

PTT
11th Dec 2014, 07:38
419Thanks BB.
That could well explain why they keep the reasons for their decisions secret so that it couldn't influence a trial (or even cause a mistrial) in the future.Yes, thanks to BB as well and thank you for asking a question I'd not considered. I wonder if it happens a lot? Is there now a process by which Garner's family could attempt to force a trial, or does only the state have that power?

Decisions themselves are not kept secret - it's almost the only bit we get to know about - but I would agree that the process by which they came to their conclusions and the identities of the jurors would need to be secret. Would publishing the evidence prejudice future trials any more than publishing a decision would?

FL - while I accept that sometimes I am less than clear in setting out some of my assumptions* and that can cause confusion, the reframing of others' arguments to fit arguments happens to a lot of people here, not just me.

* a case in point in this thread being that I only considered publishing after a verdict was reached but did initially not state that, and a common one by me is only picking up on those points I disagree with while not explicitly stating ones I agree with such as with MagnusP earlier.

chuks
11th Dec 2014, 12:40
Bob pointed out a black woman with sergeant's stripes who can be seen in the video, seeming to be trying to direct what is going on. If she was the one in charge, then it becomes something much more complicated than "White cops kill black father of 6!"

PTT, there was a saying that was popular in the States about 80 years ago, that "You can slice it as thin as you like, but it's still baloney!" Shall I translate that for you, or do we finally understand each other?

Flying Lawyer
11th Dec 2014, 13:22
rh200
I have little doubt that there will people here who will agree with your post. I am not one of them.
You made your attitude towards the incident very clear in your first post. (Post 6)The big bubba resisted arrest and croaked it, tragic, moral of the story is don't resist arrest, regardless of your skin color. So did some others. It wasn't until arguably post 15 and certainly post 16 that anyone addressed the issues raised by what can be seen in the video.
You habitually describe people whose opinions differ from yours as 'the Left', 'Left wing apologists', 'bra burning feminists', 'huggy fluffies', 'fruit loops' etc. I'm content to take that risk.Its all very complicated etcIt may be to you but we have different areas of expertise. And yes, I have had to make decisions in extremely 'sensitive' circumstances.
You wonder why th prosecutor concentrated on one, it perhaps comes down to what we said about consequences and perceived bias.
I did not say that I wondered. I don't. I intentionally expressed myself as delicately as I could.
Who are "we"? it maybe the prosecutor looked at the whole thing and said, nothing to see here. I would be surprised if even the least experienced lawyer I was training took that view. Unless it turned out that they were having a bad day, I'd be curious about how they managed to get through law school and the Bar exams, and be concerned that they might be better suited to a different career.

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 14:17
FL,


You habitually describe people whose opinions differ from yours as 'the Left', 'Left wing apologists', 'bra burning feminists', 'huggy fluffies', 'fruit loops' etc. I'm content to take that risk.


Do you reserve such criticism to a single individual or are you trying to suggest a "Class Action" application when you make such a comment?

Do you apply the same standard to those who have the same but opposite political view who also post in the same tone and manner as does our good friend who you refer to in that comment of yours?

In this Left/Right thing it should come as no surprise to you that there are two sides to every coin and except for outside intervention that Coin falls on opposite faces when tossed. We see a perfect example of what Intervention looks like when we note the way the American Media and BBC present the News each day. There is a definite Bias visible in how the News is manipulated.

Are we going to see the same thing here at pprune?

Do you draw the line at individuals being called "Fluffs" or do you consider generic descriptions of classes or groups of such folk to be questionable?

Just as we have our Yank Bashers and Spam Haters, we also have some folks that reply in kind to that kind of talk. Who is wrong in that situation?

This is an internet forum that exists for the free exchange of views within certain defined standards, i.e. the Rules of Engagement.

So long as the posts remain within those guidelines then I would suggest there are some who doth protest too much.

If One does not like what was posted as it differs from One's own views that in itself is not grounds for complaint. What One should do is just ignore the comment and Poster and move on.

If the posts fall outside the ROE's then filing a complaint is appropriate.

Do Lawyers muzzle the opposition in Court Cases or do they argue their Case and hope they are persuasive in their effort to convince the Judge or Jury?

If we all agreed on every topic or issue it would make for a very dull boring useless place to visit here at pprune.

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2014, 14:29
If we all agreed on every topic or issue it would make for a very dull boring useless place to visit here at pprune.
But think of all the bandwidth we'd save! :p

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Dec 2014, 14:52
Are we going to see the same thing here at PPRuNe?
I think that if anyone tries to make any sort of vaguely civilised comment here they know perfectly well that they're going to get a bashing from the preponderance of right-wing gun-toting petrolhead nutters.


It's all part of the fun, after all.


(Let's see how long it takes this time then ... who'll be the first to fall for it?)

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2014, 15:08
from the preponderance of right-wing gun-toting petrolhead nutters.
Nice job at constructing a mythical bogey man.
Suggest you hide under your bed tonight, as said bogey man, made mostly from straw, may be haunting your neighborhood! :eek:
(Really, don't worry, he's just doing recon for Santa to find out who has been naughty and who has been nice, so that the sleigh stops only at the correct addresses. It appears that Mr and Mrs Claus are contracting out their small business consumer research requirements to the lowest bidder, and that is who won the business this year).
Sweet dreams. :cool:

Gertrude the Wombat
11th Dec 2014, 15:13
Sixteen minutes.

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2014, 15:15
Still searching for your civilized comment.
You can then begin your timer. ;)

Boudreaux Bob
11th Dec 2014, 15:16
Gertie,

You using Common Core Math? I count it as 35 Minutes before you posted.

As my post was directed to Flying Lawyer....exactly what was it that prompted you to poke your nose into this?

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2014, 15:29
To answer your question, what's the difference between the garden variety Yank basher on PPruNe and a noble who in feudal times had oversight/control of a county?

The letter "o"