[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Racist Cops—or Liberal Slander? We have found the new normal in America. If you are truly outraged by some action of police, prosecutors, grand juries, or courts, you can shut down the heart of a great city. Thursday night, thousands of “protesters” disrupted the annual Christmas tree lighting at Rockefeller Center, conducted a “lie-in” in Grand Central, blocked Times Square, and shut down the West Side Highway that scores of thousands of New Yorkers use to get home. That the rights of hundreds of thousands of visitors and New Yorkers were trampled upon by these self-righteous protesters did not prevent their being gushed over by TV commentators. Watching cable, I saw one anguished man cry out from a blocked car that he was trying to get his sick dog to the vet. But his rights were inferior to the rights of protesters to block traffic, chant slogans and vent their moral outrage to TV cameras. From New York to Washington to Oakland, crowds acted in solidarity to block main arteries at rush hour. Has President Obama condemned this? Has Eric Holder? Remarkable. Underlings of Gov. Chris Christie have been under investigation for a year for closing off lanes to the George Washington Bridge. Contrast liberal indignation at Christie, with liberal indulgence of the lawbreaking Thursday night, and you will see what people mean when they talk of a moral double-standard. What were these protests about? A grand jury on Staten Island voted not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner last July. As the video that has gone global shows, Pantaleo sought to arrest Garner, a 6’5", 350-pound man arrested many times before. What was Garner doing? Selling cigarettes one by one on a main street, a public nuisance for the stores and shops in front of which he plied his trade, but not a felony, and surely not a capital offense. A misdemeanor at most. As Garner backed away and brushed aside attempts to handcuff him, Pantaleo grabbed him from behind by the neck to pull him down, as other cops swarmed in. Repeatedly, Garner cried, “I can’t breathe!” On the ground he again cried, “I can’t breathe!” And he died there on the sidewalk. Undeniably, terrible and tragic. Undeniably, not a natural death. And, undeniably, the way Garner was brought down and sat upon, an arm around his neck, contributed to, if it did not cause, his death. Yet Garner did not die by strangulation. According to the city medical examiner, he died from the “compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.” The cops were holding him down by sitting on him. As Rep. Peter King said Thursday, “If [Garner] had not had asthma and a heart condition and was so obese, he would not have died.” The Washington Post reports that the medical examiner seemed to confirm this, describing “Garner’s asthma and hypertensive cardiovascular disease as contributing factors.” Why would a Staten Island grand jury not indict Pantaleo for murder or manslaughter in the death of Eric Garner? In a word, intent. Did Pantaleo intend to kill Eric Garner when he arrived on the scene? Did Pantaleo arrive intent on injuring Eric Garner? No and no. Pantaleo was there to arrest Garner, and if he resisted, to subdue him and then arrest him. That was his job. Did he use a chokehold, which the NYPD bans, or a takedown method taught at the police academy, as his lawyer contends? That is for the NYPD to decide. The grand jury, viewing the video, decided that the way Pantaleo brought down Garner was not done with any criminal intent to kill or injure him, but to arrest him. Garner’s death, they decided, was accidental, caused by Pantaleo and the other NYPD cops who did not intend his injury or death, with Garner’s asthma and heart disease as contributing factors. Now that grand jury decision may be wrong, but does it justify wild allegations of “racist cops” getting away with “murder”? This reflexive rush to judgment happens again and again. We were told Trayvon Martin was shot to death by a white vigilante for “walking while black,” and learned that Trayvon, when shot, had been beating a neighborhood watch guy nearly unconscious, “martial arts style,” while sitting on top of him. We were told that Ferguson cop Darren Wilson gunned down an unarmed black teenager for walking in the street, and learned that Michael Brown just robbed a convenience store, attacked Wilson in his patrol car, and was shot trying to wrestle away the officer’s gun. Liberals are imprisoned by a great myth—that America is a land where black boys and men are stalked by racist white cops, and alert and brave liberals must prevent even more police atrocities. They live in a world of the mind. The reality: As of 2007, black-on-white violent crime was nearly 40 times as common as the reverse. But liberals can’t give up their myth, for it sustains their pretensions to moral superiority. It defines who they are. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47. #1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
Why would a Staten Island grand jury not indict Pantaleo for murder or manslaughter in the death of Eric Garner? Intent? Buchanan must be kidding. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1209
manslaughter
#2. To: nolu chan (#1) In a word, intent. Sounds like Pat is right on, using the definition you supplied. The cop was not engaged in a felony, nor reckless behavior. He was doing his job, the job we pay him to do. His job involves interactions with criminals, an activity in which black people are disproportionately represented. That is not the fault of the police, or society, but the black people whose intent is to engage in those crimes.
#3. To: nativist nationalist (#2) Sounds like Pat is right on, using the definition you supplied. Nah. Pat relies on lack of intent. The autopsy ruled it a homicide. The ruling of homicide means an unnatural cause of death, not necessarily a crime. The prohibited choke hold, and the non-care by the EMT's or cops on scene are ample to find probable cause to indict if that was desired. The death could be attributed to crushing or pressure by other cops while Garner was down. If the grand jury found that to be the major cause, no indictment would follow as all of those cops were granted immunity. The cop did not do his job the way he was being paid to do it. The choke hold he used has been prohibited in NYC for about twenty years. The best explanation for the lack of a true bill is:
Staten Island's top prosecutor did not ask grand jurors to consider a reckless endangerment charge in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, a source familiar with the case told NBC 4 New York.
#9. To: nolu chan (#3) (Edited) and the non-care by the EMT's Garner didn't die at the scene. While being transported to the hosp by ambulance, he suffered a heart attack, was rendered aid by the EMTs, and died an hour later in the hospital.
#10. To: Vinny (#9) and the non-care by the EMT'sGarner didn't die at the scene. While being transported to the hosp by ambulance, he suffered a heart attack, was rendered aid by the EMTs, and died an hour later in the hospital. Correct, he was not pronounced dead at the scene. He went into obvious distress at the scene and the taxpayer-paid EMTS are clearly shown standing around not performing emergency life-saving care. Nor are the cops calling them to urgently provide care. The petechial hemorrhages are difficult to dismiss. That he did not die immediately does not change that the maner of death was ruled homicide and the events of the homicide did not occur in either an ambulance or hospital.
#13. To: nolu chan (#10) (Edited) The petechial hemorrhages are difficult to dismiss. That he did not die immediately does not change that the maner of death was ruled homicide and the events of the homicide did not occur in either an ambulance or hospital. The ME called it homicide, however, the grand jury returned no bill. Such is the rule of law.
#14. To: Vinny (#13)
The ME called it homicide, however, the grand jury returned no bill. The grand jury is a secret proceeding and we know very little other than the result. The evidence that was presented and how it was presented is secret. We do know that the grnd jury was not offered Reckless Endangerment or Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation. The inevitable civil suit will likely shine some light on the affair. It will be interesting to see whether there is a ruling that Pantaleo actions were outside of his job in applying a prohibited and unlawful chokehold. It may be relevant to liability. As for the law, we can read that, and as for what happened, we can see and hear it on youtube.
#15. To: nolu chan (#14) We do know that the grnd jury was not offered Reckless Endangerment or Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation. You KNOW this based on a newspaper leak? Really?
#29. To: Vinny, nolu chan (#15) We do know that the grnd jury was not offered Reckless Endangerment or Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation. You KNOW this based on a newspaper leak? Really?
Nice catch. The GJ was sooo "secret" that details hemorrhaged...er...I mean "leaked" to external newspaper sources. Notice ONLY negative details are leaked. NOT Mr. Fat's arrest record, his "F-U's" to the cops, or that Fat-Boy said "couldn't breathe" nearly a dozen times. A pathological lying criminal who cries wolf often doesn't get the benefit of doubt in any case.
#32. To: Liberator (#29)
You KNOW this based on a newspaper leak? A leak of information has neither more nor less validity than an official proclamation from the government. This is expecially true when the government is defending its own apparent or blatant misconduct. The Pentagon Papers were a leak. Investigative reporting relies on leaks. News sources that do not rely on leaks are invalid as providers of news. No, this did not originate with a leak to a newspaper. It was released by the chief investigative reporter for NBC 4 at 30 Rock in NY. It was picked up and reported by all, or virtually all major print and TV news sources, liberal and conservative. It is attributed by a reliable source to someone with knowledge of the charging documents. The veracity of the report has been uncontested by any news source, or the government. The Pentagon Papers were a leak. Watergate was a series of leaks. Recently, CIA and other government misconduct resulted from the Manning/Snowden leaks. Absent leaks, news would be little more than reading or listening to what Josh Earnest et al say on the record. You may choose to believe what you want. For example, you may choose to believe Eric Garner caused the petechial hemorrhages found in his autopsy. Or you may choose to believe that ambulance or hospital staff did it.
#36. To: nolu chan (#32) No, this did not originate with a leak to a newspaper. It was released by the chief investigative reporter for NBC 4 at 30 Rock in NY. The semantics of "leak" are irrelevant. I'd like to know how it was that a subversive network that has been an obvious political organ of propaganda for Bammy and the Dems was given this smidgeon of supposed "secret" GJ info.... Could it be to make the Grand Jury, Prosecutor, ANF Law Enforcement give the impression this case was Fixed?? Oooooh Nooooo...MSNBC/NBC and the law-breaking leaker of privied GJ info wouldn't possibly do that...would they?? You may choose to believe what you want. For example, you may choose to believe Eric Garner caused the petechial hemorrhages found in his autopsy. Or you may choose to believe that ambulance or hospital staff did it. Come on, Nolu. What's your dog in this fight? Garner is a victim of his own stupidity, negligence, and law breaking. And here you are defending ALL of it, while blaming LE because the behemoth of an intimidating, non-compliant criminal IGNORED commands. And risked his own life. The responsibility is his ALONE.
#38. To: Liberator (#36) Come on, Nolu. What's your dog in this fight? Combating ignorance and stupidity.
#41. To: nolu chan (#38) (Edited) Come on, Nolu. What's your dog in this fight? I see. Your dog is a pitbull. Trained by Michael Vick. Backing Trayvon, Brown, and the Somali pirates doesn't exactly give you the moral OR legal high ground. Your energies and crusade are better served combating insanity and nonsense.
#45. To: Liberator (#41)
Backing Trayvon, Brown, and the Somali pirates doesn't exactly give you the moral OR legal high ground. Your ignorance knows no bounds. I did not back Somali pirates. I backed the rule of law. Where the law provides for a right to due process, the accused person enjoys the right to due process. The nature of the alleged crime is irrelevant. The government creates the right to due process, defines the due process, and is bound by law to provide the due process. The U.S. Const., Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The question in the homicides involving Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown has nothing to do with "backing" either one. The question is whether the actions of the killer were justified or excusable. Whether the dead body belongs to a saint or a sinner makes no legal difference.
#47. To: nolu chan (#45) I did not back Somali pirates. Yet, you refuse to back the law as it pertains to the Garner vs. LE Grand Jury
Replies to Comment # 47.
Yet, you refuse to back the law as it pertains to the Garner vs. LE Grand Jury No. The grand jury may very well have properly found no true bill based on the charges available to them for consideration and the evidence presented to them. I do not believe there was any intent to kill or cause great physical harm. If the only charges presented did not include a negligence charge, not requiring intent, then I don't believe the grand jury could find a true bill. If no charge not including a required element of intent was available to the grand jury, the procedure was a farce. btw, they can always convene another grand jury for the same charges or additional charges. That is not double jeopardy.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 47. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|