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: 1199190" data-attributes="member: 17767"><p>Boondocks, I worked in "public law" enforcement. To explain, google "Administrative Law". Administrative law is a branch of "public law". Most of my enforcement actions were adjudicated before an administrative law judge. In some cases involving a criminal act, the case was litigated in a criminal law jurisdiction. Other cases were litigated in a civil law jurisdiction. I have no experience with a federal prosecutor.</p><p></p><p>But one thing the US government is good at: TRAINING. I had regular training in case discovery, PRP searches, litigation, ENFORCEMENT, how to collect evidence to support enforcement actions, how to be a better witness, etc. I was required to take an enforcement refresher annually.</p><p></p><p>Our system is based on establishing deterrents to the commission of crimes and the violation of laws and regulations. Once the process goes to the prosecution/litigation phase, rarely is it pretty. Speeding laws are a deterrent to speeding but that does not keep people from speeding.</p><p></p><p>Consider the scrutiny this arrest is getting. Consider that the arrest is on video. In this age of technology and especially when an arrest involves a minority, it is going to be dissected by the layman. Folks like all of us here are going to provide our commentary, but it does not have the sanctification of due process of law.</p><p></p><p>Candidly, you made some statements above that demonstrates your bias (take that as opinion, none of us are without bias). Until the Garner case is litigated, I am not in agreement with some of your assertions. But let's leave that alone and go one step further. Even after cases are litigated, there is not a Divine Determination that the findings resulting from the litigation are "right or wrong". As you pointed out so aptly, a Jury gets it wrong. Like the O.J trial.</p><p></p><p>IMO : If Mr. Garner was a white man, we would not even know about this case. Until and if this case is thoroughly litigated, we are all blindly commenting in the dark. It was in that spirit that I provided the "scenario" above. I disagree with some of the commentary in this thread, for example, the "choke" hold part is not being characterized accurately, IMO. Only as a result of litigation will we know how the defense will present the "choke". If I were the defense, I would present it as restraint and for the purpose of getting Mr. Garner in a safe position; safe for him, the officers and the public. As you know, that is a right the defense has and they have the advantage of putting Officer Daniel Pantaleo on the stand to testify what he was doing and what his intentions were. It is not a determination of who is right and who is wrong. It is a determination of whether a Jury "finds" him "guilty" or "not guilty". IT JUST TAKES ONE TO SAY HE IS "NOT GUILTY".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inyati13, post: 1199190, member: 17767"] Boondocks, I worked in "public law" enforcement. To explain, google "Administrative Law". Administrative law is a branch of "public law". Most of my enforcement actions were adjudicated before an administrative law judge. In some cases involving a criminal act, the case was litigated in a criminal law jurisdiction. Other cases were litigated in a civil law jurisdiction. I have no experience with a federal prosecutor. But one thing the US government is good at: TRAINING. I had regular training in case discovery, PRP searches, litigation, ENFORCEMENT, how to collect evidence to support enforcement actions, how to be a better witness, etc. I was required to take an enforcement refresher annually. Our system is based on establishing deterrents to the commission of crimes and the violation of laws and regulations. Once the process goes to the prosecution/litigation phase, rarely is it pretty. Speeding laws are a deterrent to speeding but that does not keep people from speeding. Consider the scrutiny this arrest is getting. Consider that the arrest is on video. In this age of technology and especially when an arrest involves a minority, it is going to be dissected by the layman. Folks like all of us here are going to provide our commentary, but it does not have the sanctification of due process of law. Candidly, you made some statements above that demonstrates your bias (take that as opinion, none of us are without bias). Until the Garner case is litigated, I am not in agreement with some of your assertions. But let's leave that alone and go one step further. Even after cases are litigated, there is not a Divine Determination that the findings resulting from the litigation are "right or wrong". As you pointed out so aptly, a Jury gets it wrong. Like the O.J trial. IMO : If Mr. Garner was a white man, we would not even know about this case. Until and if this case is thoroughly litigated, we are all blindly commenting in the dark. It was in that spirit that I provided the "scenario" above. I disagree with some of the commentary in this thread, for example, the "choke" hold part is not being characterized accurately, IMO. Only as a result of litigation will we know how the defense will present the "choke". If I were the defense, I would present it as restraint and for the purpose of getting Mr. Garner in a safe position; safe for him, the officers and the public. As you know, that is a right the defense has and they have the advantage of putting Officer Daniel Pantaleo on the stand to testify what he was doing and what his intentions were. It is not a determination of who is right and who is wrong. It is a determination of whether a Jury "finds" him "guilty" or "not guilty". IT JUST TAKES ONE TO SAY HE IS "NOT GUILTY". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Eric Garner Case
Top