Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Eric Garner Case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="inyati13" data-source="post: 1198041" data-attributes="member: 17767"><p><em>A Staten Island grand jury cleared an NYPD cop in the chokehold death of Eric Garner during his caught-on-video arrest for peddling loose cigarettes, the Staten Island district attorney confirmed Wednesday.</em></p><p> <em></em></p><p><em>The panel voted a "no-bill" and dismissed all potential charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo.</em></p><p></p><p>Unless you attended the proceeding and can witness that there was a miscarriage of justice, I don't know on what grounds one can comment that the cop is guilty that trumps the findings of the jury. Unless you heard the evidence presented inside that jury, the comments here are just that, commentary of limited substance.</p><p></p><p>The video seems to justify some of the daming comments provided above. But there are nuances to law that I am sure were presented that provided a legitimate basis for a billing of no charges. Charges often carry the burden of labeling acts as "willful", "deliberate", "knowing", etc. Those are difficult thresholds to meet. For example, a coal mine operator pushes a rock over the side of a mountain and it rolls through a home and kills a person in the home. To achieve the maximum punishment the law allows, the burden of proof is to show that the act was "knowingly and willfully" conducted. Imagine then getting on the stand as the primary witness for the prosecution and proving what is in a human being's head when they commit an act. It almost requires "Divine Powers".</p><p></p><p>Until there is evidence that the Jury was wrong, I am going to be content to accept that the Jury heard evidence that suggests that the officer was in a frame of mind that justified his actions and that his actions were not "willful or deliberate" for the purpose of doing permanent harm. Regardless of one's observations, the most substantive metric to measure whether the officer's actions were justified is the finding of the Jury.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inyati13, post: 1198041, member: 17767"] [i]A Staten Island grand jury cleared an NYPD cop in the chokehold death of Eric Garner during his caught-on-video arrest for peddling loose cigarettes, the Staten Island district attorney confirmed Wednesday. The panel voted a “no-bill” and dismissed all potential charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo.[/i] Unless you attended the proceeding and can witness that there was a miscarriage of justice, I don't know on what grounds one can comment that the cop is guilty that trumps the findings of the jury. Unless you heard the evidence presented inside that jury, the comments here are just that, commentary of limited substance. The video seems to justify some of the daming comments provided above. But there are nuances to law that I am sure were presented that provided a legitimate basis for a billing of no charges. Charges often carry the burden of labeling acts as "willful", "deliberate", "knowing", etc. Those are difficult thresholds to meet. For example, a coal mine operator pushes a rock over the side of a mountain and it rolls through a home and kills a person in the home. To achieve the maximum punishment the law allows, the burden of proof is to show that the act was "knowingly and willfully" conducted. Imagine then getting on the stand as the primary witness for the prosecution and proving what is in a human being's head when they commit an act. It almost requires "Divine Powers". Until there is evidence that the Jury was wrong, I am going to be content to accept that the Jury heard evidence that suggests that the officer was in a frame of mind that justified his actions and that his actions were not "willful or deliberate" for the purpose of doing permanent harm. Regardless of one's observations, the most substantive metric to measure whether the officer's actions were justified is the finding of the Jury. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Eric Garner Case
Top