Eric Garner and liberal greed

[Valiant Corvus]

People here seem to keep missing what the real problem is.

IT IS NOT THE GRAND JURY'S JOB TO DETERMINE THE WORTHINESS OF EVIDENCE.

Literally the only reason for their existence is to prevent cases where there is absolutely no evidence to support any accusations from going to trial. This applies to Ferguson, Garner, and the boy in Georgia who was killed for holding a wiimote; the grand jury's basically said "There's evidence that a crime could have been commited, but we're gonna decide to not take it to trial." And it's their own damn fault, along with the prosecution attorneys who are unwilling to pursue cases against police officers who very well may be guilty of a crime.

Race, color, ethnicity, gender; all be damned. This is where the true problem lies.

[I AM R U]

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

Cops didn't have a reason to kill him - arrest him, yes, charge him and let him go through the criminal justice system, yes. But kill him? No.

The problem is that it was an accident, not an intentional death.

So? Just because you accidentally kill someone, doesn't mean you cannot be held legally responsible for it.

This is true, but the use of force was justified, he died in large part to the heart disease, it wasn't out of the bounds of a normal officer to act in the way he did, so it's not seen as excessive force, just an unfortunate situation.

No - while his heart did give out, it would not have done so without the police actions. The coroner ruled it a homicide.

And there was nothing "justified" in what the officers did, from the video his resistance is token, and besides, the move the officer performed had been banned for 20 years.

At best, by a departmental regulation, which the actual 1985 deceleration, the only piece of information around, has had no amendments to it. There are statements that it was completely banned in 1993, but the actual codified rule has remained the same.

The coroner is not a judge; ruling it a homicide is not the same as determining guilt. Was the application of force justified, would it have *ordinarily* lead to death? Did the officer act out of line in an ordinary situation? If not, then the initial use of force was justified, and thus they are not liable for the subsequent, accidental death.

And it should have gone to trial to determine that.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

I AM R U

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

So? Just because you accidentally kill someone, doesn't mean you cannot be held legally responsible for it.

This is true, but the use of force was justified, he died in large part to the heart disease, it wasn't out of the bounds of a normal officer to act in the way he did, so it's not seen as excessive force, just an unfortunate situation.

No - while his heart did give out, it would not have done so without the police actions. The coroner ruled it a homicide.

And there was nothing "justified" in what the officers did, from the video his resistance is token, and besides, the move the officer performed had been banned for 20 years.

At best, by a departmental regulation, which the actual 1985 deceleration, the only piece of information around, has had no amendments to it. There are statements that it was completely banned in 1993, but the actual codified rule has remained the same.

The coroner is not a judge; ruling it a homicide is not the same as determining guilt. Was the application of force justified, would it have *ordinarily* lead to death? Did the officer act out of line in an ordinary situation? If not, then the initial use of force was justified, and thus they are not liable for the subsequent, accidental death.

And it should have gone to trial to determine that.

A grand jury is similar to a trial, it's a pretrial of sorts. We can talk about whether or not that should be removed or not, but there's layers before a trial is just given.

[I AM R U]

Valiant Corvus

People here seem to keep missing what the real problem is.

IT IS NOT THE GRAND JURY'S JOB TO DETERMINE THE WORTHINESS OF EVIDENCE.

Literally the only reason for their existence is to prevent cases where there is absolutely no evidence to support any accusations from going to trial. This applies to Ferguson, Garner, and the boy in Georgia who was killed for holding a wiimote; the grand jury's basically said "There's evidence that a crime could have been commited, but we're gonna decide to not take it to trial." And it's their own damn fault, along with the prosecution attorneys who are unwilling to pursue cases against police officers who very well may be guilty of a crime.

Race, color, ethnicity, gender; all be damned. This is where the true problem lies.

Much of that is the fault, as you say, of prosecutors. Its their job to convince the jury that indictment should occur, and its not a particularly difficult job in the context of a grand jury. But when it comes to the police, prosecutors are too close to them to do their job objectively.

[Mei tsuki7]

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

So? Just because you accidentally kill someone, doesn't mean you cannot be held legally responsible for it.

This is true, but the use of force was justified, he died in large part to the heart disease, it wasn't out of the bounds of a normal officer to act in the way he did, so it's not seen as excessive force, just an unfortunate situation.

You do know that chokeholds are against NYPD policy right? Also the ME said it was due to the chokehold that he died. Which is why it was ruled a homicide.

As sad as it is, it was due to

The details if it was a chokehold or wasn't a chokehold is up in the air, and whether or not chokeholds are completely banned still seems sketchy, but even if they were banned, and even if the chokehold was the cause, it's a departmental regulation, with no federal laws actually regulating the use of a chokehold.

He died in large part because he had cardiovascular disease, heart disease, and asthma, so while the chest compression helped, he wouldn't have died under ordinary conditions.

Without the chokehold he would not have died. It's called manslaughter.

That's not really how it works. People die from car accidents all the time, but the difference between an accident and a manslaughter is culpability. Did the person act out of line, would it have been unreasonable to expect a person to act another way in the same situation? The headlock would not have killed someone in ordinary situations, so it was not out of line for the cop to subdue the target with force in the manner they did; against a normal person in a normal situation, it would not have happened. The question is not whether someone died, it's is there negligence, malice, and so on.

And that's rather subjective. I see him not stopping when Eric Gardner said he couldn't breathe as him being culpable.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Mei tsuki7

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

You do know that chokeholds are against NYPD policy right? Also the ME said it was due to the chokehold that he died. Which is why it was ruled a homicide.

As sad as it is, it was due to

The details if it was a chokehold or wasn't a chokehold is up in the air, and whether or not chokeholds are completely banned still seems sketchy, but even if they were banned, and even if the chokehold was the cause, it's a departmental regulation, with no federal laws actually regulating the use of a chokehold.

He died in large part because he had cardiovascular disease, heart disease, and asthma, so while the chest compression helped, he wouldn't have died under ordinary conditions.

Without the chokehold he would not have died. It's called manslaughter.

That's not really how it works. People die from car accidents all the time, but the difference between an accident and a manslaughter is culpability. Did the person act out of line, would it have been unreasonable to expect a person to act another way in the same situation? The headlock would not have killed someone in ordinary situations, so it was not out of line for the cop to subdue the target with force in the manner they did; against a normal person in a normal situation, it would not have happened. The question is not whether someone died, it's is there negligence, malice, and so on.

And that's rather subjective. I see him not stopping when Eric Gardner said he couldn't breathe as him being culpable.

So if a suspect says he can't breathe you're supposed to let him go, that's the precedence we're establishing? Continuing to arrest him and then providing medical assistance after the arrest is generally what they're expected to do, which is what they did.

[I AM R U]

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

So? Just because you accidentally kill someone, doesn't mean you cannot be held legally responsible for it.

This is true, but the use of force was justified, he died in large part to the heart disease, it wasn't out of the bounds of a normal officer to act in the way he did, so it's not seen as excessive force, just an unfortunate situation.

No - while his heart did give out, it would not have done so without the police actions. The coroner ruled it a homicide.

And there was nothing "justified" in what the officers did, from the video his resistance is token, and besides, the move the officer performed had been banned for 20 years.

At best, by a departmental regulation, which the actual 1985 deceleration, the only piece of information around, has had no amendments to it. There are statements that it was completely banned in 1993, but the actual codified rule has remained the same.

The coroner is not a judge; ruling it a homicide is not the same as determining guilt. Was the application of force justified, would it have *ordinarily* lead to death? Did the officer act out of line in an ordinary situation? If not, then the initial use of force was justified, and thus they are not liable for the subsequent, accidental death.

And it should have gone to trial to determine that.

A grand jury is similar to a trial, it's a pretrial of sorts. We can talk about whether or not that should be removed or not, but there's layers before a trial is just given.

No, its not. Its to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial - or more accurately, to ensure a trial doesn't occur when there is insufficient evidence.

Unlike the a usual 'petit' jury, which is used to determine guilt in a trial, a grand jury consists of 16 to 23 jurors who are not screened for bias. The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to decide whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony crime. The grand jury operates in secrecy and the normal rules of evidence do not apply. The prosecutor runs the proceedings and no judge is present. Defense lawyers are not allowed to be present in the grand jury room and cannot present evidence, but may be available outside the room to consult with witnesses. The prosecutor and the grand jury members may not reveal what occurred in the grand jury room and witnesses cannot obtain a transcript of their testimony.

[Mei tsuki7]

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

You do know that chokeholds are against NYPD policy right? Also the ME said it was due to the chokehold that he died. Which is why it was ruled a homicide.

As sad as it is, it was due to

The details if it was a chokehold or wasn't a chokehold is up in the air, and whether or not chokeholds are completely banned still seems sketchy, but even if they were banned, and even if the chokehold was the cause, it's a departmental regulation, with no federal laws actually regulating the use of a chokehold.

He died in large part because he had cardiovascular disease, heart disease, and asthma, so while the chest compression helped, he wouldn't have died under ordinary conditions.

Without the chokehold he would not have died. It's called manslaughter.

That's not really how it works. People die from car accidents all the time, but the difference between an accident and a manslaughter is culpability. Did the person act out of line, would it have been unreasonable to expect a person to act another way in the same situation? The headlock would not have killed someone in ordinary situations, so it was not out of line for the cop to subdue the target with force in the manner they did; against a normal person in a normal situation, it would not have happened. The question is not whether someone died, it's is there negligence, malice, and so on.

And that's rather subjective. I see him not stopping when Eric Gardner said he couldn't breathe as him being culpable.

So if a suspect says he can't breathe you're supposed to let him go, that's the precedence we're establishing? Continuing to arrest him and then providing medical assistance after the arrest is generally what they're expected to do, which is what they did.

Thing is, there are other ways to control a suspect already on the ground than a chokehold.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

I AM R U

Valiant Corvus

People here seem to keep missing what the real problem is.

IT IS NOT THE GRAND JURY'S JOB TO DETERMINE THE WORTHINESS OF EVIDENCE.

Literally the only reason for their existence is to prevent cases where there is absolutely no evidence to support any accusations from going to trial. This applies to Ferguson, Garner, and the boy in Georgia who was killed for holding a wiimote; the grand jury's basically said "There's evidence that a crime could have been commited, but we're gonna decide to not take it to trial." And it's their own damn fault, along with the prosecution attorneys who are unwilling to pursue cases against police officers who very well may be guilty of a crime.

Race, color, ethnicity, gender; all be damned. This is where the true problem lies.

Much of that is the fault, as you say, of prosecutors. Its their job to convince the jury that indictment should occur, and its not a particularly difficult job in the context of a grand jury. But when it comes to the police, prosecutors are too close to them to do their job objectively.

Let's say that's the case; we try to charge him, again.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would launch an "independent, thorough, fair, and expeditious" civil rights investigation into Garner’s death. If he had actually went to trial at this point, there would be no way to try him twice, since the law state's you cannot try someone for the same crime twice.

However, by putting him up for a grand jury, it means he can finally be put on trial for the crime when all the evidence presents itself and is thoroughly investigated, and charged multiple times, because you can be put up to a grand jury an infinite number of times.

Grand juries exist largely because of double jepordies. If we say we want to put him up to a grand jury again, we can, even for the same crime.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Mei tsuki7

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

Suicidesoldier#1

Mei tsuki7

Without the chokehold he would not have died. It's called manslaughter.

That's not really how it works. People die from car accidents all the time, but the difference between an accident and a manslaughter is culpability. Did the person act out of line, would it have been unreasonable to expect a person to act another way in the same situation? The headlock would not have killed someone in ordinary situations, so it was not out of line for the cop to subdue the target with force in the manner they did; against a normal person in a normal situation, it would not have happened. The question is not whether someone died, it's is there negligence, malice, and so on.

And that's rather subjective. I see him not stopping when Eric Gardner said he couldn't breathe as him being culpable.

So if a suspect says he can't breathe you're supposed to let him go, that's the precedence we're establishing? Continuing to arrest him and then providing medical assistance after the arrest is generally what they're expected to do, which is what they did.

Thing is, there are other ways to control a suspect already on the ground than a chokehold.

The exact details if it was a chokehold or not are questionable, but alternative methods, such as a tazer or pepper spray, are generally more likely to cause asthma attacks and heart failure than restraining, grappling maneuvers.

[I AM R U]

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

Valiant Corvus

People here seem to keep missing what the real problem is.

IT IS NOT THE GRAND JURY'S JOB TO DETERMINE THE WORTHINESS OF EVIDENCE.

Literally the only reason for their existence is to prevent cases where there is absolutely no evidence to support any accusations from going to trial. This applies to Ferguson, Garner, and the boy in Georgia who was killed for holding a wiimote; the grand jury's basically said "There's evidence that a crime could have been commited, but we're gonna decide to not take it to trial." And it's their own damn fault, along with the prosecution attorneys who are unwilling to pursue cases against police officers who very well may be guilty of a crime.

Race, color, ethnicity, gender; all be damned. This is where the true problem lies.

Much of that is the fault, as you say, of prosecutors. Its their job to convince the jury that indictment should occur, and its not a particularly difficult job in the context of a grand jury. But when it comes to the police, prosecutors are too close to them to do their job objectively.

Let's say that's the case; we try to charge him, again.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would launch an "independent, thorough, fair, and expeditious" civil rights investigation into Garner’s death. If he had actually went to trial at this point, there would be no way to try him twice, since the law state's you cannot try someone for the same crime twice.

However, by putting him up for a grand jury, it means he can finally be put on trial for the crime when all the evidence presents itself and is thoroughly investigated, and charged multiple times, because you can be put up to a grand jury an infinite number of times.

Grand juries exist largely because of double jepordies. If we say we want to put him up to a grand jury again, we can, even for the same crime.

You can be charged for the same crime (different charges though, obviously) in both criminally and civilly :/

[Suicidesoldier#1]

I AM R U

Suicidesoldier#1

I AM R U

Valiant Corvus

People here seem to keep missing what the real problem is.

IT IS NOT THE GRAND JURY'S JOB TO DETERMINE THE WORTHINESS OF EVIDENCE.

Literally the only reason for their existence is to prevent cases where there is absolutely no evidence to support any accusations from going to trial. This applies to Ferguson, Garner, and the boy in Georgia who was killed for holding a wiimote; the grand jury's basically said "There's evidence that a crime could have been commited, but we're gonna decide to not take it to trial." And it's their own damn fault, along with the prosecution attorneys who are unwilling to pursue cases against police officers who very well may be guilty of a crime.

Race, color, ethnicity, gender; all be damned. This is where the true problem lies.

Much of that is the fault, as you say, of prosecutors. Its their job to convince the jury that indictment should occur, and its not a particularly difficult job in the context of a grand jury. But when it comes to the police, prosecutors are too close to them to do their job objectively.

Let's say that's the case; we try to charge him, again.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would launch an "independent, thorough, fair, and expeditious" civil rights investigation into Garner’s death. If he had actually went to trial at this point, there would be no way to try him twice, since the law state's you cannot try someone for the same crime twice.

However, by putting him up for a grand jury, it means he can finally be put on trial for the crime when all the evidence presents itself and is thoroughly investigated, and charged multiple times, because you can be put up to a grand jury an infinite number of times.

Grand juries exist largely because of double jepordies. If we say we want to put him up to a grand jury again, we can, even for the same crime.

You can be charged for the same crime (different charges though, obviously) in both criminally and civilly :/

Well, civil suits don't actually look for crime, but it wouldn't exactly be the same charge. xp

Some people don't commit crimes but still get sued. emotion_0A0


Like, breaking a contract is always illegal per say, but it will result in them being able to claim damages and reparations.

[Sugarbeary]

Mei tsuki7

LoveLoud837

Mei tsuki7

LoveLoud837

Mei tsuki7

You do know that chokeholds are against NYPD policy right? Also the ME said it was due to the chokehold that he died. Which is why it was ruled a homicide.

It was a takedown maneuver he was attempting, not a chokehold; but he is so big it kinda happened for a few seconds.

Which means he was a poorly trained police officer who should have known how to do that move correctly. You have to admit that the police officer screwed up with what he did.

Perhaps, but nonetheless he was doing his job. I know I couldn't do that maneuver on a guy that big without screwing up either. Yet he was a criminal that needed to be arrested and he was resisting, stuff happens.

Which means he should have known not to do it in the first place. Or he should have at least stopped when Eric Gardner said he couldn't breathe. He made a mistake which caused someone's death. That's called manslaughter.

police officers though do things that they may not be capable of to protect the citizens. Just like the army. They fight for freedom and junk

[The Herald of War]

It's Zeus' fault actually. If lightning had struck the officer then Garner would be alive.