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: 1198919" data-attributes="member: 17767"><p>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 <strong>not </strong>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.</p><p></p><p>IN THE DEFENSE OF OFFICER PANATELLA</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I would provide the facts of Mr. Garner's actions that escalated the encounter to the point that an arrest was necessary.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inyati13, post: 1198919, member: 17767"] 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 [b]not [/b]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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Eric Garner Case
Top