Eric Garner Case

[greybeard]

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?

If I had a problem with it, I would have said so. I had a problem with the part I emphasized (underlined).
Inasmuch as I am a stalwart believer in the 1st amendment, you should already know I would not try to deprive you of your constitutional rights to post whatever you little heart desires, even if it is a fallacy. That does not mean, that I won't point out the fallacy of your underlined sensationalistic statement.
(I don't have to google how a grand jury works, I've sat on one too.)
Again, and I realize you have difficulty with this, but the grand jury did NOT say "NO!!!!" to a charge of 'breach of protocol, or a civil rights violation, nor did it say "NO!!!!" to whether the debate should be about those 2 issues.

As far as the personal phone conversation between you and the current lame duck president, that's none of my business. If I wanted to know, I'd ask the NSA.

 

[inyati13]

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?

If I had a problem with it, I would have said so. I had a problem with the part I emphasized (underlined).
Inasmuch as I am a stalwart believer in the 1st amendment, you should already know I would not try to deprive you of your constitutional rights to post whatever you little heart desires, even if it is a fallacy. That does not mean, that I won't point out the fallacy of your underlined sensationalistic statement.
(I don't have to google how a grand jury works, I've sat on one too.)
Again, and I realize you have difficulty with this, but the grand jury did NOT say "NO!!!!" to a charge of 'breach of protocol, or a civil rights violation, nor did it say "NO!!!!" to whether the debate should be about those 2 issues.

As far as the personal phone conversation between you and the current lame duck president, that's none of my business. If I wanted to know, I'd ask the NSA.

Excellent. I would expect no less from you. If you have no problem with the message above, I have had my satisfaction. My message to Gimpy was to provide an explanation that regardless of the minor nature of the original infraction, this case is about what occurred as a result of Mr. Garner's belligerence and failure to cooperate with law enforcement. I am sure we will hear more about this case. Mr. Garner's civil rights and other matters are sure to be litigated in civil court if not criminal court. If I may speculate, in the end, it will be more about money than misdeeds.

Thanks you for your indulgence. I apologize for my message and I welcome any comments present or future. As for myself, I rather enjoyed it.

 

[greybeard]

I have come to expect nothing less from you as well.
(I was out moving cows and hay earlier, but for future reference, I usually stay up till about 4am CST and am up around 6 or 7am)

 

[inyati13]

I have come to expect nothing less from you as well.
(I was out moving cows and hay earlier, but for future reference, I usually stay up till about 4am CST and am up around 6 or 7am)

Please, just don't provide the time of your bowel movements. Just kidding.

It is noteworthy that you and I showed these hillbillies on here how two real Gentlemen can settle a matter of this importance. :tiphat:

 

[inyati13]

Greybeard, if I may? How credible is the information you have on what the Grand Jury was charged with billing? Personally, I have not been that interested in following this case. If you notice, most of my comments are regarding process, not the particulars of this case.

I have seen legal proceedings misrepresented by off-hand accounts. Not specifically as it relates to a Grand Jury, but I have been part of teams doing discovery for enforcement actions hundreds of times and when you get the actual court documents, things are not what they were represented to be. I can understand why they were not tasked on the civil rights issue. The DA is not going to waste taxpayers dollars when it is a lead pipe cinch that the special interest groups are going to litigate the civil rights law. In regard to arrest protocols, the people's attorney is likely to send that down to the Police Department.

This is not something you got off a forum is it????? :lol: :lol: :lol:
I am making a serious question of your source.

 

[slick4591]

Civil rights violations are federal, not to be handled by a state GJ. Any policy violation can be considered by a GJ in their decision, but punishment will be handled within the PD.

A grand jury is its own investigative body to decide if a case needs to go to a trial court. They have a prosecutor in there to present the case, but can kick them out at any time and handle it on their own. Our GJ's have their own penal codes and can indict any lesser offenses they choose. They are not obligated to the prosecutor in any way.

 

[Caustic Burno]

I completely agree with the grand jury here.
Don't resist arrest it's that simple.
The officer didn't write the law he enforces them.
The greedy politician is the reason a man resisting arrest died.

Get rid of the crooked politicians ordering laws to be enforced that should have never been enacted.

 

[greybeard]

Greybeard, if I may? How credible is the information you have on what the Grand Jury was charged with billing? Personally, I have not been that interested in following this case. If you notice, most of my comments are regarding process, not the particulars of this case.

(I'll address the missing part of this quote later)
I am making a serious question of your source.

Source(s) plural, and you note, I did say "unless these [following] news articles are all fabrications"
Probably as reliable as any other information about this grand jury investigation. The only major news service I found that said the prosecution asked for possible lesser charge of reckless endangerment came from Fox News. When I went back to look at the same article, there was a correction, saying they were in error stating that charge was on the table. Actually, they didn't say they were in error--said they couldn't confirm it one way or another. I read each of the articles from the news organizations I mentioned in my other post, as well as some from legal pundits. They all said the same thing. Here's one of them:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Er ... 69641.html
another:
http://nypost.com/2014/12/06/da-didnt-a ... r-charges/
another--a news group I admittedly detest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/0 ... 75698.html

The DA himself has neither confirmed nor denied this to be the case, citing secrecy of grand jury investigations prohibit him from commenting at all.

 

[greybeard]

Civil rights violations are federal, not to be handled by a state GJ. Any policy violation can be considered by a GJ in their decision, but punishment will be handled within the PD.

A grand jury is its own investigative body to decide if a case needs to go to a trial court. They have a prosecutor in there to present the case, but can kick them out at any time and handle it on their own. Our GJ's have their own penal codes and can indict any lesser offenses they choose. They are not obligated to the prosecutor in any way.

That was not the case on the GJ I was on and in one case (we heard numerous cases--did numerous investigations) our foreman asked the prosecutor if another option was available. One word reply- "no".

 

[slick4591]

Civil rights violations are federal, not to be handled by a state GJ. Any policy violation can be considered by a GJ in their decision, but punishment will be handled within the PD.

A grand jury is its own investigative body to decide if a case needs to go to a trial court. They have a prosecutor in there to present the case, but can kick them out at any time and handle it on their own. Our GJ's have their own penal codes and can indict any lesser offenses they choose. They are not obligated to the prosecutor in any way.

That was not the case on the GJ I was on and in one case (we heard numerous cases--did numerous investigations) our foreman asked the prosecutor if another option was available. One word reply- "no".

I'm sure you heard plenty in a six month term. Maybe there were no options left on the case you speak of, or you were led down a prosecutor's path. No way to know at this point. I have been a bailiff for several GJ's and my wife has been a GJ legal Secretary for almost all her 30 years for our DA. Know the system pretty well and how it can be used to indict a ham sandwich if allowed.

 

[greybeard]

Slick,
How would one know tho--what charge to indict that ham sanwich with?
It seems to me, that sort of leeway, left solely up to the jury, would mean the jurists would have to know an inordinately large amount of law and legalese in order to be able to decide on their own, what charge to consider. Some of our jurists (and I'll be generous) were borderline illiterate. Most of our cases were drug related-burglary, robbery, manufacture of drugs, intent to distribute, assault, car theft type crimes. If we hadn't been charged before hand (given guidance by prosecutor) most of us, myself included, wouldn't have had a clue exactly which charge would fit the testimony we heard.

 

[boondocks]

Inyati,
Greybeard's view (that the prosecutor did not offer the lesser offenses for consideration) has been widely reported, and to my knowledge, not contradicted. The grand jury doesn't get to fish for other possible charges. It decides whether there's enough evidence to charge as to the crimes the prosecutor asks them to consider. One of the criticisms/conflicts prosecutors face is this:

In cases alleging police brutality (or excessive force), the prosecutor may be loathe to go too far out on a limb. Here, the prosecutor is taking heat (and in my view, and from what little I know, rightly so) for not offering a lesser charge. He basically presented the grand jury with an all-or-nothing choice: charge him hard or let him skate. Prosecutors have to work with their local cops day in and day out. If the local police force wants its revenge for one of "their" guys getting charged, all they have to do is start subtly shading their testimony in the rest of the prosecutor's cases. The prosecutor then comes to a complete stop, loses a bunch of cases. Note: I didn't say the cops LIE, just that maybe their memories get a little less clear, etc. Shoot, maybe they did forget to recalibrate that breathalyzer, as the defense counsel is suggesting...

This is why, in credible cases of police misconduct, we need either a federal, or a special prosecutor that isn't from the same town, and who doesn't have to work day in/day out with that police force. That's just common sense, and good governance.

As for me, I have no qualms whatsoever about second-guessing their judgment in this case, even as to the charges with which they WERE presented. Juries get it wrong. It happens. (OJ Simpson, anyone?). They are swayed by things they shouldn't be swayed by. (Ever seen a dog when it sees a squirrel? Every thing that came before the squirrel--poof-- leaves its brain).

 

[greybeard]

I'll add this. I don't believe for one second that the officers had any INTENT to cause the death, which is also (I presume) why more severe charges weren't sought.

 

[inyati13]

Preface: The exposure I get to the news is limited to a moment when I start my computer. I do not read a paper. I do not watch the news. Consider the following as a fantasy or a fairytale. There is no pretense that it represents the facts of the Eric Darner Case. The purpose is for entertainment.

Please know that the theme of my fantasy is not due to Mr. Eric Garner's race. During my late 50s, I dated two different black women in Denver. I never felt any stigma attached to being in public with a black lady. We went to restaurants, bars, and took walks downtown. There was only one episode that might have been the result of racism. I was at her home in east Denver (Aurora), a predominately black neighborhood. When I went to get in my car, all four tires had been slashed with a box cutter. I went back into the house and when she came out to look, three black men about four houses down the street were watching us intently. You draw your own conclusions. I never stayed there for the night after that. And I never went there that I did not have a Wilson Combat .45 ACP on my person. She is a tall willowy lovely black woman.

This fantasy is about presenting the defense of Officer Panatella. Here is a loosely written diatribe on points I would consider:

NOTE: GB, YOUR NATURE IS TO TAKE YOURSELF AND OTHERs VERY SERIOUSLY ON SUBJECTS OF THIS NATURE, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN ISSUE FOR YOU AND I TO DEBATE. JUST TRY TO TAKE IT AS ENTERTAINMENT. FEEL FREE TO PRESENT YOUR OWN FANTASY. THIS ONE IS MINE. SINCERELY, THANKS.

IN THE DEFENSE OF OFFICER PANATELLA

In the defense of Officer Panatella, the Judge has instructed the Jury that the backgrounds of both Officer Panatella and Mr. Garner are not in the purview of the court. The determination of guilt is based solely on the acts, intentions, and nature of the arrest. The infraction of peddling loosies is illegal but has no bearing on the finding of guilt.

I would present the evidence that the officers including Officer Panatella observed a belligerent large black male when they were performing their duties. I would present evidence as to the nature of his behavior, the names he used, whether there were any threats. Everything to demonstrate that he was belligerent and not cooperating with the enforcement of a law or regulation that the officers are sworn to uphold.

I would provide the facts of Mr. Garner's actions that escalated the encounter to the point that an arrest was necessary.

I would portray the arrest as a routine arrest. Officer Panatella had only one objective in mind: to perform an arrest. He had no intention of harming or doing injury to Mr. Garner. In addition to performing the arrest, he was concerned for the safety of Mr. Garner, the officers, and the public. As part of Officer Panatella's role in the arrest, he was restraining Mr. Garner's head. The head can be used as a weapon. Officer Panatella encircled Mr. Garner's head with his arms while the other officer's restrained other parts of Mr. Garner's body. The arrest was being performed without any intention of malice or injury.

Mr. Garner was a large man. I would provide details of his medical condition. Large man, obese, asthma, heart condition. Everything to show he was at risk of death for this kind of physical activity.

My main point would be that Mr. Garner was belligerent. He resisted a lawful arrest. The officers where performing their duties. This is a key: I would present that the officers were in a routine frame of mind. Officer Panatella was in fact, not emotional and did not feel threatened. They never felt in danger. Why because that supports the position that they had no ill intentions.

I would focus on the point that Mr. Garner's heath was a risk. He was not provoked. He was riled up not out of deliberate provokation but by officers performing their duties. His state of self-induced agitation put his health at risk. It was his actions that contributed to his death and while it is indeed a tragedy, Officer Panatella was performing his duties in a normal, routine manner.

 

[greybeard]

As soon as I read the word fantasy, I stopped reading. It was nice, when I was 5 or 6,but
When I became a man, I put away my childish things.

 

[inyati13]

As soon as I read the word fantasy, I stopped reading. It was nice, when I was 5 or 6,but
When I became a man, I put away my childish things.

Thank you.
Better for a man to define himself
Than to define another man.

I am fond of fantasy.

 

[inyati13]

My initial presentation of this was teed up poorly. Let me present it thusly: This is a potential scenario that might unfold if charges are made against Officer Pantella in a criminal court. Regardless of the charge being sought, the defense could potentially pursue the following scenario. This scenario is not provided under a pretense that all the facts are known and/or available. I confess a paucity of knowledge of the case. Take it as commentary in the same spirit that this entire thread is presented.

IN THE DEFENSE OF OFFICER PANATELLA

In the defense of Officer Panatella, the Judge has instructed the Jury that the backgrounds of both Officer Panatella and Mr. Garner are not in the purview of the court. The determination of guilt is based solely on the acts, intentions, and nature of the arrest. The infraction of peddling loosies is illegal but has no bearing on the finding of guilt.

I would present the evidence that the officers including Officer Panatella observed a belligerent large black male when they were performing their duties. I would present evidence as to the nature of his behavior, the names he used, whether there were any threats. Everything to demonstrate that he was belligerent and not cooperating with the enforcement of a law or regulation that the officers are sworn to uphold.

I would provide the facts of Mr. Garner's actions that escalated the encounter to the point that an arrest was necessary.

I would portray the arrest as a routine arrest. Officer Panatella had only one objective in mind: to perform an arrest. He had no intention of harming or doing injury to Mr. Garner. In addition to performing the arrest, he was concerned for the safety of Mr. Garner, the officers, and the public. As part of Officer Panatella's role in the arrest, he was restraining Mr. Garner's head. The head can be used as a weapon. Officer Panatella encircled Mr. Garner's head with his arms while the other officer's restrained other parts of Mr. Garner's body. The arrest was being performed without any intention of malice or injury.

Mr. Garner was a large man. I would provide details of his medical condition. Large man, obese, asthma, heart condition. Everything to show he was at risk of death for this kind of physical activity.

My main point would be that Mr. Garner was belligerent. He resisted a lawful arrest. The officers where performing their duties. This is a key: I would present that the officers were in a routine frame of mind. Officer Panatella was in fact, not emotional and did not feel threatened. They never felt in danger. Why? Because presenting the accused in a business-like frame of mine removes the motive that he acted out of anger for the purpose of retribution.

I would focus on the point that Mr. Garner's heath was a risk. He was not provoked. He was riled up not out of deliberate provocation but by officers performing their duties. His state of self-induced agitation put his health at risk. It was his actions that contributed to his death and while it is indeed a tragedy, Officer Panatella was performing his duties in a normal, routine manner.

PS: I consider myself and I hope I am correct to do so, a non-racist person. I have had and continue to have numerous associations with people of color. My views as represented here are not based on race. I would have the same view if Mr. Garner was caucasian.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Inyati,
Greybeard's view (that the prosecutor did not offer the lesser offenses for consideration) has been widely reported, and to my knowledge, not contradicted. The grand jury doesn't get to fish for other possible charges. It decides whether there's enough evidence to charge as to the crimes the prosecutor asks them to consider. One of the criticisms/conflicts prosecutors face is this:

In cases alleging police brutality (or excessive force), the prosecutor may be loathe to go too far out on a limb. Here, the prosecutor is taking heat (and in my view, and from what little I know, rightly so) for not offering a lesser charge. He basically presented the grand jury with an all-or-nothing choice: charge him hard or let him skate. Prosecutors have to work with their local cops day in and day out. If the local police force wants its revenge for one of "their" guys getting charged, all they have to do is start subtly shading their testimony in the rest of the prosecutor's cases. The prosecutor then comes to a complete stop, loses a bunch of cases. Note: I didn't say the cops LIE, just that maybe their memories get a little less clear, etc. Shoot, maybe they did forget to recalibrate that breathalyzer, as the defense counsel is suggesting...

This is why, in credible cases of police misconduct, we need either a federal, or a special prosecutor that isn't from the same town, and who doesn't have to work day in/day out with that police force. That's just common sense, and good governance.

As for me, I have no qualms whatsoever about second-guessing their judgment in this case, even as to the charges with which they WERE presented. Juries get it wrong. It happens. (OJ Simpson, anyone?). They are swayed by things they shouldn't be swayed by. (Ever seen a dog when it sees a squirrel? Every thing that came before the squirrel--poof-- leaves its brain).

I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.

 

[inyati13]

Inyati,
Greybeard's view (that the prosecutor did not offer the lesser offenses for consideration) has been widely reported, and to my knowledge, not contradicted. The grand jury doesn't get to fish for other possible charges. It decides whether there's enough evidence to charge as to the crimes the prosecutor asks them to consider. One of the criticisms/conflicts prosecutors face is this:

In cases alleging police brutality (or excessive force), the prosecutor may be loathe to go too far out on a limb. Here, the prosecutor is taking heat (and in my view, and from what little I know, rightly so) for not offering a lesser charge. He basically presented the grand jury with an all-or-nothing choice: charge him hard or let him skate. Prosecutors have to work with their local cops day in and day out. If the local police force wants its revenge for one of "their" guys getting charged, all they have to do is start subtly shading their testimony in the rest of the prosecutor's cases. The prosecutor then comes to a complete stop, loses a bunch of cases. Note: I didn't say the cops LIE, just that maybe their memories get a little less clear, etc. Shoot, maybe they did forget to recalibrate that breathalyzer, as the defense counsel is suggesting...

This is why, in credible cases of police misconduct, we need either a federal, or a special prosecutor that isn't from the same town, and who doesn't have to work day in/day out with that police force. That's just common sense, and good governance.

As for me, I have no qualms whatsoever about second-guessing their judgment in this case, even as to the charges with which they WERE presented. Juries get it wrong. It happens. (OJ Simpson, anyone?). They are swayed by things they shouldn't be swayed by. (Ever seen a dog when it sees a squirrel? Every thing that came before the squirrel--poof-- leaves its brain).

I totally disagree the last thing we need is more federal intrusion they stir up more crap than cure.
That is a major problem with this country today fed's sticking their finger in local issues for political gain.
Divide and conquer.You have the right to protest and I will defend your right to your opinion of free speech.
This marching as an excuse to loot and be terrorist should dealt with a street sweeper.

I agree with CB. Why have State and local governments if they are going to be usurped by the federal government. Let's tear down all state and local lines and have one government if this is going to be the mode of opperandi. It seems like a nation that cannot pay its bills should find some economy in reducing the numerous layers of government.

I have seen it first hand for over 30 years. Layers upon layers of enforcement and regulation. I acknowledge there is substance in regulation for the benefit of the majority but why in he$$ do me need so many layers of government all doing the same thing?

 

[Dave]

The new politically correct term is not looting. It is now known as undocumented shopping.