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: 1198609" data-attributes="member: 17767"><p>GB, I disagree with you. Nevertheless, I thank you for your thoughts.</p><p>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: <em>Gimpy, Please consider this:</em></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!!!!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I would be happy to respond to any further comment. I am at your service. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inyati13, post: 1198609, member: 17767"] 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: [i]Gimpy, Please consider this:[/i] 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. :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Eric Garner Case
Top