TexasBred
Well-known member
Probably was gonna be a doctor too. :shock:Jogeephus":38inqkra said:
Eric Garner Case
- Thread starter skyhightree1
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Hook
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,923
- Reaction score
- 2
Street pharmacistTexasBred":3pnqga8l said:
TexasBred
Well-known member
In that case he was probably already checking out law schools as well :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:Hook":1h6l1fqp said:
Jogeephus
Well-known member
gimpyrancher":20er9tn1 said:
You should do your part and become a police officer and treat these fine individuals with the respect they deserve. I think you would be perfect in Harlem or Detroit. Officer Gimpy has a nice ring to it too!
highgrit
Well-known member
I figured he was going to be president, could be his son after all.
inyati13
Well-known member
gimpyrancher":wo041uvv said:
Gimpy, Please consider this:
When officers engage a belligerent individual regardless of what the initial circumstances are and that engagement escalates, it is a moot point what the original infraction was. An engagement may have originated over someone spitting on the sidewalk but if that individual is belligerent, fails to cooperate with the individuals who are sworn to carry out their legal obligations and perform their duties, then an arrest is the next step in law enforcement protocols. At that point, it does not matter whether the original infraction was selling loose cigarettes or murder. The offender is subject to arrest and that arrest is a sacred obligation and duty the officer. His failure or inability to conduct it is tantamount to a hole in the dike of protection of public heath and safety and providing law enforcement. That the offender resisted arrest is what this is about, not his original infraction.
I often see on this forum comments regarding law enforcement employing Overwhelming force. This is not a contest to see who is stronger or tougher. It is not a contest based on "ole country boy" fairness. It is to ensure that the public is confident that the law of the land can be enforced. To not use Overwhelming force is absolutely stupid!!!!!
Now, having stated my point, the debate should be whether their arrest procedures constitute a breach of protocols or the rights of MR. Garner. A Grand Jury said NO!!!!!
Maybe a Federal investigation will say something else, but don't count on it. I promise you the DA and Jury knew this case would get scrutiny.
PS: I have not followed this closely, but I have watched a couple of those type news cast where they discuss this case. It is shameful how the media presents this. They make it into a TV drama and none of it gets to the fine points of the law!
Well said Ron.
TexasBred
Well-known member
AKA "Chester" as in Gunsmoke. ;-)Jogeephus":3n0eedxk said:
You should do your part and become a police officer and treat these fine individuals with the respect they deserve. I think you would be perfect in Harlem or Detroit. Officer Gimpy has a nice ring to it too![/quote]
AKA "Chester" as in Gunsmoke. ;-)[/quote]
Funny you would mention that. I just watched the episode where Mat left Chester to guard a prisoner who was an admitted thief and murder.
The fella pretended that his horse was stepping on his foot and when Chester went to help he took the pistol from him and matt had to kill the fella to save Chester and himself..........very appropriate :tiphat:
AKA "Chester" as in Gunsmoke. ;-)[/quote]
Funny you would mention that. I just watched the episode where Mat left Chester to guard a prisoner who was an admitted thief and murder.
The fella pretended that his horse was stepping on his foot and when Chester went to help he took the pistol from him and matt had to kill the fella to save Chester and himself..........very appropriate :tiphat:
Dave
Well-known member
I watched this several times and my original thought was this guy is flipping huge. Then I hear his daughter talk. She said her dad was 6'4" and over 300 pounds. Now,I knew he was heavy from the pictures but I had thought he was well over 6'4". The next time saw this I realized that all the cops were about 5'8"- 5'6". I am old enough to remember when there was a size requirement for cops. Back then most cops looked like marine drill instructors. People were a lot less likely to fight with a cop who is well over 6 foot. Just my observations.
Interesting point was that his daughter didn't think it had anything to do with race but her opinion was that the cop wanted to have the reputation back at the precinct as the biggest bad ass out there.
Interesting point was that his daughter didn't think it had anything to do with race but her opinion was that the cop wanted to have the reputation back at the precinct as the biggest bad ass out there.
greybeard
Well-known member
"none of it gets to the fine points of the law"inyati13":2d5240fi said:
Nor, did you. Some of your statements are basically, and patently false because you left out some very important (and obvious) information.
But first--I notice, after going to the trouble of quoting the question, you decided not to answer Gimpy's relatively simple and direct question, but decided to make up an easier one to answer instead. You went off on a tangent which is nothing more than deflection and misdirection--just as some of the media has embarked upon sensationalism (what was once referred to yellow journalism).
But moving on to your very misleading statement..I can say with confidence and truth, that the Grand Jury also did not true bill Officer Panatella on the charge of rape and child abuse in the Garner episode. How can I say that? Because those were not among the charges sought by the prosecutor (for obvious reasons) But, I can still "say" it, and on face value and sensationalism, it just sounds SO good doesn't it?
Grand juries (and even trial juries) work this way: The prosecution makes a list of charges for which it seeks an indictment. It can be one charge or several--or many.The jury is instructed by both prosecution and Court to consider those charges and only those charges--NOTHING ELSE. In this case, the jury was instructed to consider 2 charges.
2nd degree Manslaughter.
Criminally negligent homicide.
That, is it--period. The lesser charges of:
Reckless Endangerment,
Violation of departmental protocol,
and Violation of the deceased's civil rights were not on the table--not up for consideration by jury, and according to the information that was released by court order, not listed in The People's complaint by prosecutor/DA Daniel Donovan.
Your allegation that the Grand Jury said NO! to those charges is a falsehood unless the information in the NBC, Fox, ABC, NY Post, NY Daily News reports (and verified by the DA's office) are all fabrications. The grand jury isn't allowed to consider, much less rule on other charges--one of the "finer points of law" you just chastised the news media for ignoring. Cake looks good under the glass--but can you eat it and still look at it?
inyati13
Well-known member
GB, I disagree with you. Nevertheless, I thank you for your thoughts.
First, my purpose was to offer my thoughts for Gimpy's consideration. I did not even express disagreement with his message. Look again, please. You will see the preface: Gimpy, Please consider this:
Second, the background of Officer Panatella would not have likely been in the purview of this Grand Jury investigation. Likewise, the background of Mr Garner was likely not in the purview of the Grand Jury. This Grand Jury would logically have focused on the arrest that ended in the death of Mr Garner.
Third, my message does not hold the pretense that it was a "legal" dissection of the Eric Garner Grand Jury. My message is focused on the nature of an arrest and why the circumstances that lead to an arrest are disjointed from what transpires during the arrest. If that disturbs you. I apologize. In fact, I could have made my point without ever mentioning the Eric Garner Case!!!!
Fourth, my statement that the Grand Jury said NO to (1) 2nd degree Manslaughter and (2) Criminally negligent homicide is extremely significant. That they did not pursue Reckless Endangerment and Violation of Departmental protocol is not surprising to me. The departmental protocols would more appropriately be pursued in the department.
I would be happy to respond to any further comment. I am at your service.
First, my purpose was to offer my thoughts for Gimpy's consideration. I did not even express disagreement with his message. Look again, please. You will see the preface: Gimpy, Please consider this:
Second, the background of Officer Panatella would not have likely been in the purview of this Grand Jury investigation. Likewise, the background of Mr Garner was likely not in the purview of the Grand Jury. This Grand Jury would logically have focused on the arrest that ended in the death of Mr Garner.
Third, my message does not hold the pretense that it was a "legal" dissection of the Eric Garner Grand Jury. My message is focused on the nature of an arrest and why the circumstances that lead to an arrest are disjointed from what transpires during the arrest. If that disturbs you. I apologize. In fact, I could have made my point without ever mentioning the Eric Garner Case!!!!
Fourth, my statement that the Grand Jury said NO to (1) 2nd degree Manslaughter and (2) Criminally negligent homicide is extremely significant. That they did not pursue Reckless Endangerment and Violation of Departmental protocol is not surprising to me. The departmental protocols would more appropriately be pursued in the department.
I would be happy to respond to any further comment. I am at your service.
MO_cows
Well-known member
Mrs. Garner was very honest with reporters - she said she doesn't think race played a role. I bet Crump crapped himself and doesn't let her do any interviews after that. She also said some other truthful but not flattering things about her dearly departed husband. I really respect that, she sure showed a lot more class and character than the parents of Brown.
Even though the grand jury didn't vote to indict, the department has leeway to discipline its officers, reassign, retrain, etc. And that is probably more appropriate than criminal charges anyway since they certainly didn't intend to hurt or kill Garner, they were just sloppy enough that it happened. And too dumb to realize he was in a medical crisis until it was too late as it turns out. The cop who applied the neck hold has had previous complaints, just might be time to cull him.
The real root cause is the stupid NYC ordinance that mandated he be arrested for selling "loosies" in the first place. You can go into any tobacco shop and buy *ONE* cigar, but you have to go to jail if you sell one cigarette?? I guess the do-gooders never saw this one coming, huh?
Even though the grand jury didn't vote to indict, the department has leeway to discipline its officers, reassign, retrain, etc. And that is probably more appropriate than criminal charges anyway since they certainly didn't intend to hurt or kill Garner, they were just sloppy enough that it happened. And too dumb to realize he was in a medical crisis until it was too late as it turns out. The cop who applied the neck hold has had previous complaints, just might be time to cull him.
The real root cause is the stupid NYC ordinance that mandated he be arrested for selling "loosies" in the first place. You can go into any tobacco shop and buy *ONE* cigar, but you have to go to jail if you sell one cigarette?? I guess the do-gooders never saw this one coming, huh?
inyati13
Well-known member
MO_cows":3906x91p said:
MO_cows. I only offer this for your consideration. In my career in enforcement, I was often asked, "why do we have to do this?" Or "why is it wrong to do this?" My relpy was, "I am duly authorized to conduct the enforcement of these laws and regulations, but please understand that I did not legislate them. If you think they are wrong, write your congressmen. But as long as I am going to accept payment and cash the check that the US government sends me, I am going to enforce these laws and regulations even if you and I can see places where they are wrong."
My point is this: These officers did not pass this loosie law. But it is their duty to enforce it.
greybeard
Well-known member
inyati13":n6geg335 said:
And again, just as you ignored Gimpy's question, you are choosing to ignore the obvious fallacy in your post; you claimed (correctly), that the news media often ignores the "finer points of law" while you did exactly the same thing.
You also emphatically (capitalized and punctuated with !!!!) that the grand jury no billed the officer on the charges of civil rights violations or departmental protocol violations. That is a false statement, made for sensationalistic value. The grand jury never did anything of the sort.
inyati13
Well-known member
Greybeard: Please allow me to do this, with your permission only. I will restate my primary point in the message that is causing you so much consternation. I wanted Gimpy to consider the following:
When officers engage a belligerent individual regardless of what the initial circumstances are and that engagement escalates, it is a moot point what the original infraction was. An engagement may have originated over someone spitting on the sidewalk but if that individual is belligerent, fails to cooperate with the individuals who are sworn to carry out their legal obligations and perform their duties, then an arrest is the next step in law enforcement protocols. At that point, it does not matter whether the original infraction was selling loose cigarettes or murder. The offender is subject to arrest and that arrest is a sacred obligation and duty the officer. His failure or inability to conduct it is tantamount to a hole in the dike of protection of public heath and safety and providing law enforcement. That the offender resisted arrest is what this is about, not his original infraction.
Do you have a problem with the message in italics above?
My purpose is to do this one step at a time. We can hit the other points this evening. I am going to be leaving the computer shortly to go back to my farm and cattle. Do I have your permission?
When officers engage a belligerent individual regardless of what the initial circumstances are and that engagement escalates, it is a moot point what the original infraction was. An engagement may have originated over someone spitting on the sidewalk but if that individual is belligerent, fails to cooperate with the individuals who are sworn to carry out their legal obligations and perform their duties, then an arrest is the next step in law enforcement protocols. At that point, it does not matter whether the original infraction was selling loose cigarettes or murder. The offender is subject to arrest and that arrest is a sacred obligation and duty the officer. His failure or inability to conduct it is tantamount to a hole in the dike of protection of public heath and safety and providing law enforcement. That the offender resisted arrest is what this is about, not his original infraction.
Do you have a problem with the message in italics above?
My purpose is to do this one step at a time. We can hit the other points this evening. I am going to be leaving the computer shortly to go back to my farm and cattle. Do I have your permission?
inyati13
Well-known member
Greybeard, I just received a call from President Obama. He is reading this thread. He thinks that you and I may have a place in his administration. Isn't that great news? I declined. I Said my cows are more important!
inyati13
Well-known member
Greybeard, are you there? (Louder) Greybeard.
I bet he is googling!!!!! Well, at least he is a self-made lawyer. I give him that much.
I bet he is googling!!!!! Well, at least he is a self-made lawyer. I give him that much.
inyati13
Well-known member
Man, I got to go.
