[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 # 61. #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.
#23. To: nolu chan, Vinny (#10) 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. Counselor, you're making quite a few assumptions here, aren't you? Firstly, Taxpayers pay for LAW ENFORCEMENT as well. That means keeping the peace, addressing nuisances, sweeping riff-raff off the street, AND maintaining public safety. Btw -- Hawking cigarettes (or lemonade) without a license AFTER SEVERAL COURTESY WARNINGS is still illegal -- like it or not. Secondly, Mr. Fats distress *was* addressed. Unfortunately, the street is NOT an ER. Fact is, you have NO idea what medical care was being administered to Mr. Fats at the scene, or if it appeared to be a "life-saving" situation. Nor whether the cops had called, who they called, and to what sense of "urgency" they conveyed. I can see you're setting up your "negligence" case. Great being a Monday Morning QB, ain't it? he petechial hemorrhages are difficult to dismiss. AND diagnosis on a street in the middle of mayhem (that Mr. Fats himself caused.) You'd probably also whine on about the "lack of care" a B-Slapped terrorist hadn't received as well.
#31. To: Liberator (#23)
Secondly, Mr. Fats distress *was* addressed. Unfortunately, the street is NOT an ER. Fact is, you have NO idea what medical care was being administered to Mr. Fats at the scene, The video is clear. It appears you have no idea what it shows and does not show.
[T]he petechial hemorrhages are difficult to dismiss. The finding of petechial hemorrhages was made by the Medical Examiner at the morgue. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs/education/medical/
Medical examiners Eric Garner did not compress his own neck or strangle himself.
#35. To: nolu chan (#31) The video is clear. It appears you have no idea what it shows and does not show. The video may be clear. True, neither one of us knows exactly what transpired. The video also misses the prelude, and conversations where Garner obviously refused to comply to simple LE requests. The part where Garner forewarns the LE that he has health conditions that *might* cause him to die -- I'm sure THAT'S on tape as well....OH WAIT. Eric Garner did not compress his own neck or strangle himself. REALLY?? Now you're going to go with, "Garner was strangled!"?? True, his fat neck *was* compressed in take-down. That's primarily because he didn't understand the English language command, "HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK." OR, maybe he had an undiagnosed hearing problem.
#40. To: Liberator (#35) [Liberator #23] Fact is, you have NO idea what medical care was being administered to Mr. Fats at the scene, or if it appeared to be a "life-saving" situation. [nolu chan #31] The video is clear. It appears you have no idea what it shows and does not show. [Liberator #35] The video may be clear. True, neither one of us knows exactly what transpired. The video also misses the prelude, and conversations where Garner obviously refused to comply to simple LE requests. The part where Garner forewarns the LE that he has health conditions that *might* cause him to die -- I'm sure THAT'S on tape as well....OH WAIT. You seriously claim that the video is unclear what medical care was administered to Garner at the scene because you don't know what happened before the video???
#43. To: nolu chan (#40) You seriously claim that the video is unclear what medical care was administered to Garner at the scene because you don't know what happened before the video??? You're conflating two separate observations (still gonna stay with your "strangled" claim??) The video is clear on Garner intimidating and threatening LE. He demanded that the scrawny LE not come near him and resisted. The video is also clear had Garner complied with his 32nd Arrest, six more over-officious cops wouldn't have had to overwhelm him. He brought it upon himself. Did you miss THAT part?? Cop are cops -- NOT ENTs. People pass out from many thing but don't die. Yes, Garner's medical care could have been quicker. But apparently YOU feel that all cops have a crystal ball and know medical conditions of their perps. Continue to flout the law and the Man is NOT going to give you the benefit of doubt -- as in Garner's case. Comply or be prepared to get roughed up, Counselor. I don't make the rules and laws. But if they were European Law, perhaps you'd take them and human nature more seriously.
#50. To: Liberator (#43) [Liberator #35] REALLY?? Now you're going to go with, "Garner was strangled!"?? Of course, I did not claim that Garner was strangled. It is sad that you must make believe that I did.
[nolu chan #31] As you choose not to understand the obvious, I will endeavor to clarify it and reduce it to your level of comprehension. Dr. Fierro said that petechial hemorrhages of the eye are generally a sign of asphyxia. Asphyxia results in deficiency of oxygen and excess of carbon dioxide in the blood. Not enough oxygen and too much carbon dioxide bad. Dr. Fierro said, explaining what could cause petechiae in the eye, "many varieties of asphyxia such as smothering, strangulation, anything that compresses on the neck, while the person is conscious and trying to breathe against it." Possible explanations for petechial hemorrhages given by Dr. Fierro are:
I observed that "Eric Garner did not compress his own neck or strangle himself." Eric Garner did not smother himself. Watch the homicide on the video and see if Eric Garner either smothered himself, strangled himself, or compressed his own neck. Dr. Fierro said:
So generally petechae are something that you need to account for—you have to explain those. In the homicide of Eric Garner, no one alleges smothering. In the homicide of Eric Garner, the Medical Examiner did not find strangulation. That eliminates two of the possible explanations for the observed petechial hemorrhages. The Medical Examiner did find that there were compressions of the neck involved with the homicide of Eric Garner, and hemorrrhages were found in the neck of Eric Garner. I observed that Eric Garner did not compress his own neck. The alternative is that some other person or persons did that. In the video of the homicide, I clearly see another man holding Eric Garner in what appears to be a chokehold. You are free to speculate what caused the neck hemorrhages and petechial hemorrhages to the eye of Eric Garner. Perhaps it was Invisible Man.
#51. To: nolu chan, Liberator (#50) In the video of the homicide, I clearly see another man holding Eric Garner in what appears to be a chokehold. The homicide notation by the ME was weighed by the grand jury and found to have no merit. My proof? The return of no true bill v Pantaleo. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
#53. To: Vinny (#51) The homicide notation by the ME was weighed by the grand jury and found to have no merit. My proof? The return of no true bill v Pantaleo. Stop being ridiculous. Stop trying to make believe that a grand jury is a judicial proceeding, or that a return of no true bill equates to a judicial opinion. It was a homicide. Garner is dead and another person or persons made him that way. The grand jury cannot find that an autopsy has no merit. Justice Scalia, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Williams, 504 US 36, 47 (1992) stated: "the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside...." Williams at 46-48:
"[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It" 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U. S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 825 (1977). In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U. S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a). A True Bill is an "endorsement made by a grand jury upon a bill of indictment, when they find it sustained by the evidence laid before them, and are satisfied of the truth of the accusation. The endorsement made by a grand jury when they find sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal charge." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. A failure to find a True Bill indicates the grand jury found a lack of evidence for some element of the charge. That could be a lack of evidence of intent, if intent is an element of the charge considered.
#58. To: nolu chan (#53) It was a homicide. You're wrong. Criminal negligent homicide was considered by the GJ and rejected, therefore it wasn't a homicide. Sorry.
#61. To: Vinny (#58) It was a homicide. That homicide occurred is uncontested. It is a fact. Feigning ignorance cannot change that fact. Another human being killed Eric Garner. That is homicide. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Homicide. The killing of one human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another.
Replies to Comment # 61. Another human being killed Eric Garner. That is homicide. You are still wrong. The word justifiable is your friend.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 61. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|