TexasBred
Well-known member
It's HOW he died. These officers did this all wrong.Sunfish":3r9h5xvj said:
Eric Garner Case
- Thread starter skyhightree1
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
john250
Well-known member
The tale of "Lonnie Loosie". http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/nyreg ... =all&_r=1&
He was a career criminal
He fathered 6 children and had no job or means to support himself or the children
Want to guess who pays for this ?
What about his children? I guess they'll be model citizens
He was a burden on on society
The report states h resisted arrest
He brought it on himself
No one should be held responsible for the death of criminal with health issues due to being overweight from receiving welfare
He fathered 6 children and had no job or means to support himself or the children
Want to guess who pays for this ?
What about his children? I guess they'll be model citizens
He was a burden on on society
The report states h resisted arrest
He brought it on himself
No one should be held responsible for the death of criminal with health issues due to being overweight from receiving welfare
greybeard
Well-known member
The equal protection clause of the constitution says differently.
MO_cows
Well-known member
Sunfish":1blfijof said:
So if you are fat and have received public assistance, that makes it OK for the cops to kill you? Just stand there after they choked you down and watch you die, no attempt to help, no sense of urgency about it? That's not the kind of policing I want my tax dollars to pay for.
Regardless of any one person's worth to society, our police need to stay within their boundaries or else we are all at risk. They don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. The cop who shot Michael Brown was within his rights. I don't think these cops were. Watch the video.
MO_cows":2f9onaqh said:
Did he resist arrest ?
Had he been arrested before and have a record for resisting arrest ?
You weren't there
But yet your going to second guess a policeman judgement
People thinking this way is why we have criminals walking the street
MO_cows
Well-known member
People expecting their police force to measure up to certain standards isn't why we have criminals walking the streets. There will always be crime, people are people, we are flawed.
Watch the video.
Watch the video.
Ryder
Well-known member
In the Ferguson looting and burning I thought shotguns would have been in order.
In the Garner case not the same thing.
One thing worse than a thug is a thug with a badge.
In the Garner case not the same thing.
One thing worse than a thug is a thug with a badge.
greybeard
Well-known member
1. That's what the cops say. Dead men tho, tell no tales.Sunfish":1f864mz9 said:
2. Irrelevant--Our constitution says equal protection for all, regardless of their past. (14th amendment) Period--and this is why DoJ is going to investigate, along with the fact that due process was abridged (5th amendment) and right to trial was mitigated (6th amendment/codified by 7th amendment) Any other parts of the Constitution you'd care to abridge today? How about the 2nd or 1st? (didn't think so)
3. Nor were you.
4. Judgement is for judges and juries--that's what the law says and police are there to enforce the law--ALL of it.
5. We have criminals walking the streets because they are criminals, and the selling of cigs on the street is not a capital offense--nor is resisting arrest.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Sometimes you come across like you're about a half bubble off plumb. Sometimes even more :nod:Sunfish":80365g3h said:
He was a criminal with record dating back 30 years
He resisted arrested therefore brought it on himself
His own actions caused this
His poor Heath
Breaking the law
Resisting arrest
If he hadn't been breaking the law or cooperated we wouldn't be having this discussion
No one should be held responsible for his death except himself
If you can't understand that then you're part of the problem and why we have the issues we do
He resisted arrested therefore brought it on himself
His own actions caused this
His poor Heath
Breaking the law
Resisting arrest
If he hadn't been breaking the law or cooperated we wouldn't be having this discussion
No one should be held responsible for his death except himself
If you can't understand that then you're part of the problem and why we have the issues we do
highgrit
Well-known member
Does anyone really think that the cop was trying to kill Eric Garner? Yes he used excessive force, but no he didn't try to kill him.
slick4591
Well-known member
Makes no difference that he was a criminal and breaking the law again.
Makes no difference if he was on welfare.
Makes no difference if he were an illegal... or whatever the else you want to interject.
That particular hold has been barred by law enforcement agencies for a long time. There's two ways to apply it and in the heat of resistance it very hard to correctly apply and keep it . Been lots of crushed larynx's and prolonged airways cut off because of improper techniques. Applied correctly you cut off blood supply via carotid arteries to the brain and the person passes out. As soon as the person goes limp then pressure is released and they are handcuffed before they wake up in a few seconds. Like I said this is not easily done on a individual that is struggling.
I can only form an opinion from what I've read and seen. Had he been a Texas officer he should have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter. I have no idea how the NY statute reads.
Makes no difference if he was on welfare.
Makes no difference if he were an illegal... or whatever the else you want to interject.
That particular hold has been barred by law enforcement agencies for a long time. There's two ways to apply it and in the heat of resistance it very hard to correctly apply and keep it . Been lots of crushed larynx's and prolonged airways cut off because of improper techniques. Applied correctly you cut off blood supply via carotid arteries to the brain and the person passes out. As soon as the person goes limp then pressure is released and they are handcuffed before they wake up in a few seconds. Like I said this is not easily done on a individual that is struggling.
I can only form an opinion from what I've read and seen. Had he been a Texas officer he should have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter. I have no idea how the NY statute reads.
greybeard
Well-known member
No, I don't think he set out to kill the man, but that could be moot.
Slick, have you heard which charge the DA was shooting for?
We don't know (I haven't found it yet anyway) what charges the DA was seeking an indictment for. The grand jury votes on a menu of charges for the defendant. The list of charges is decided solely by the D.A. The list of possible defendants is also decided solely by prosecutors.
In this case, the possible charges have not been announced but prosecutors who do this work have stated the range could have included any or all of the following:
second-degree manslaughter
criminally negligent homicide
felony assault
reckless endangerment
Prosecutors could also have asked for first-degree manslaughter, but it's doubtful they could get it, so they usually ask for an indictment on the most serious charge they think they can get an indictment for instead of the least serious, with thoughts in mind whether they can get a guilty verdict at trial should the grand jury true bill the defendant. It doesn't do any good for a prosecutor to seek indictment to get a true bill if the prosecutor doesn't think he can also get a guilty verdict in a jury trial.
Noteworthy to know, that the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment does NOT apply to grand jury because no finding of guilt is ever the result of a grand jury investigation. Prosecutors can and have sought indictments with a new grand jury, either on a different charge or a lesser or more serious charge and almost always do if new or different evidence is found. The prosecutor is legally free to seek an ndictment on a different or lesser charge--or on one more serious if he thinks he can get a true bill. In most cases, if the prosecutor is unsure on the original indictment's merit, they will hold back a different charge to try again for indictment.
Slick, have you heard which charge the DA was shooting for?
We don't know (I haven't found it yet anyway) what charges the DA was seeking an indictment for. The grand jury votes on a menu of charges for the defendant. The list of charges is decided solely by the D.A. The list of possible defendants is also decided solely by prosecutors.
In this case, the possible charges have not been announced but prosecutors who do this work have stated the range could have included any or all of the following:
second-degree manslaughter
criminally negligent homicide
felony assault
reckless endangerment
Prosecutors could also have asked for first-degree manslaughter, but it's doubtful they could get it, so they usually ask for an indictment on the most serious charge they think they can get an indictment for instead of the least serious, with thoughts in mind whether they can get a guilty verdict at trial should the grand jury true bill the defendant. It doesn't do any good for a prosecutor to seek indictment to get a true bill if the prosecutor doesn't think he can also get a guilty verdict in a jury trial.
Noteworthy to know, that the double jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment does NOT apply to grand jury because no finding of guilt is ever the result of a grand jury investigation. Prosecutors can and have sought indictments with a new grand jury, either on a different charge or a lesser or more serious charge and almost always do if new or different evidence is found. The prosecutor is legally free to seek an ndictment on a different or lesser charge--or on one more serious if he thinks he can get a true bill. In most cases, if the prosecutor is unsure on the original indictment's merit, they will hold back a different charge to try again for indictment.
highgrit
Well-known member
I bet the officer wishes he would of used a taser gun.
MO_cows
Well-known member
Sunfish":3kuijk1s said:
So it's OK by you if the cops just kill off the riff raff? We're better off without 'em, right?
Well that's just fine and dandy until someone in a higher station of life decides YOU are the riff raff.
And good grief the way the world is going, there are so many laws...we all break a few every day. I didn't collect sales tax at my last garage sale. I exceeded the speed limit just today, and with extreme prejudice, too. Come to think of it, I have even sold a pack of cigarettes out of my carton, guess I am just as lowdown as Garner. Does that mean I deserve to die?
greybeard
Well-known member
Probably. It was nice knowin' ya MO_Cows------------ otherwise, stay far away from Sunfish.
We have a real reading comprehension problem
It wasn't just a onetime offense. His criminal record dates back 30 years
He was a big guy and resisted arrest. It requires force to subdue a guy that size and a past experience may have factored into the amount of force
His demise was due to his health issues which was due to his lifestyle choices
I'll say it again
If he hadn't been breaking the law or cooperated we wouldn't be having this discussion
No one should be held responsible for his death except himself
He chose to break the law and resist arrest
Those two things along with his poor eating choices us what killed him
The officer did nothing other than his job
It wasn't just a onetime offense. His criminal record dates back 30 years
He was a big guy and resisted arrest. It requires force to subdue a guy that size and a past experience may have factored into the amount of force
His demise was due to his health issues which was due to his lifestyle choices
I'll say it again
If he hadn't been breaking the law or cooperated we wouldn't be having this discussion
No one should be held responsible for his death except himself
He chose to break the law and resist arrest
Those two things along with his poor eating choices us what killed him
The officer did nothing other than his job
greybeard
Well-known member
A. I agree. Let's try this again.Sunfish":xv0ifj91 said:
1. Constitution says past doesn't mitigate due process and equal protection--EVER.
2. Police arrest and take into custody every week, big guys without killing them.Some bigger and meaner than this one.
3. Not what the autopsy said. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc ... -1.1888808
4. I've voted GOP since 1968.
5. I agree, but if the cop had gotten sick and stayed home, we wouldn't be having it either--He's still innocent until a court says otherwise--what's your point?
6. Who says? The law says the person causing the death (after due process and trial) is to be held accountable. The ME did NOT rule it suicide or accidental death. He is infinitely more qualified than you or I to make that determination.
7.I agree with this one. I also agree the officer chose to use the banned chokehold.
8 Again, not according to a state licensed and qualified medical examiner. ME said obesity and asthma "may" have also contributed but primary cause was choking and chest compression by weight--which is why that state licensed and qualified ME ruled it a homicide. You do understand what homicide is--don't you?
9. Except he also killed a man. That, is not an officer's job unless lethal force is called for in the performance of his duty to protect life and property.
