Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Racist Cops—or Liberal Slander?
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/articles/racist-cops-or-liberal-slander
Published: Dec 4, 2014
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2014-12-05 11:12:52 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 20784
Comments: 78
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
Comments (1-38) not displayed.
.
.
.
#39. To: nativist nationalist (#34)
AND diagnosis on a street in the middle of mayhem (that Mr. Fats himself caused).I've noticed a lot of that, it almost seems like the KKK has designed the diet for a lot of blacks.
Yup. It's the KKK, Whitey, the Tea Party, Republicans, Conservatives, NASCAR rednecks, and Christians' fault that non-compliant criminal blacks pack on the LBS, form "petechial hemorrhages" then get "strangled."
#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???
#41. To: nolu chan (#38) (Edited)
Come on, Nolu. What's your dog in this fight?Combating ignorance and stupidity.
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.
#42. To: Liberator (#36)
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....
It is called investigative reporting. Investigative reporters seek out and talk to sources of information. That is what they are paid to do.
And Rupert Murdoch's New York Post carried the story, certain evidence of a Grand Conspiracy. The prime suspects are the Jesuits, the Free Masons, the Pope, the Rosicrucians, and illegal alien subversives.
From NY Post, newly found to be part of a subversive network and a political organ of propaganda for Bammy and the Dems.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/06/da-didnt-ask-garner-grand-jury-to-weigh-lesser-charges/
DA didn’t ask Garner grand jury to weigh lesser chargesBy Rich Calder and Selim Algar
December 6, 2014 | 6:23am
Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan did not include a lesser charge of reckless endangerment when he presented a grand jury with the case against cop Daniel Pantaleo, it was revealed Friday.
From NewsMax, newly found to be part of a subversive network and a political organ of propaganda for Bammy and the Dems.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/police-chokehold-killing-grand/2014/12/05/id/611453/
Report: Garner Grand Jury Not Asked to Consider Lesser ChargeFriday, 05 Dec 2014 09:59 PM
By Cathy Burke
NewsMax
The prosecutor in the chokehold death case of Eric Garner didn't ask a grand jury to consider a lesser charge of reckless endangerment against the white police officer seen in a cellphone video taking down the black man last July 17, an NBC affiliate reports.
NBC 4 New York reports Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan only asked the panel to look at manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges against police officer Daniel Pantaleo.
The grand jury on Wednesday decided not to indict the officer, setting off protests in New York and cities across the country. In Friday night protests in New York, marchers conducted massive "die-ins" at Macy's in Herald Square and at Grand Central Station.
It's not clear why Donovan left the lesser charge off the table, and he has said strict confidentiality laws surrounding grand jury proceedings prevent him from discussing the details of the case, the NBC affiliate reports.
#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.
#44. To: nolu chan (#42) (Edited)
It is called investigative reporting. Investigative reporters seek out and talk to sources of information. That is what they are paid to do.
I'm not criticizing any investigative reporting. But isn't it funny how NBC/MSNBC got the leaked scoop?? In case you've been on another planet, NBC/MSNBC is infamous for its Leftist talking heads and pro-0bumski sycophancy.
In case you hadn't also noticed, some so-called "investigative reporters" are paid to incite flames...OR spike stories critical of the Leftist agenda OR certain people.
Why don't these important "investigative reporters" report on the REAL epidemic of Black on White violent crime? The whites who've been bludgeoned to death? Gang Raped? Beat up in the nationwide "Knowck Out" Game? Where's your "investigative reporting" THERE, Mr. Counselor and utmost concern for "justice"?? Oh wait -- ELSEWHERE. Don't WHITE live count??
#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.
#46. To: nolu chan (#42)
It's not clear why Donovan left the lesser charge off the table, and he has said strict confidentiality laws surrounding grand jury proceedings prevent him from discussing the details of the case, the NBC affiliate reports.
Ok, let me spot you this one. +1 Nolu. I'll even ignore the cheating of the leaked story to the source at the corrupt, treasonous NBC "news."
WHAT OF ALL THE BLACK ON WHITE VIOLENT CRIME THAT HAS GONE UNREPORTED AND UN-PROSECUTED BY MAJOR MEDIA AND COURTS??
Thank you for your anticipated attention in this matter.
#47. To: nolu chan (#45)
I did not back Somali pirates.I backed the rule of law.
Yet, you refuse to back the law as it pertains to the Garner vs. LE Grand Jury
#48. To: nolu chan (#45)
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.
And your opinion in either case IS???.....
#49. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
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.
Unfortunately, Pat's observations still apply. Radical anarchists, Occupy Wall St hags and hippie-wannabes, thugs, and SEIU plants continue to be given a free reign to run roughshod over the rights of those trying to make a living, to a hospital, or conduct commerce.
All these "lie-ins" ought to be protesting 0bumski's treason and destruction of the USCON and conducting a "lie-in" on Pennsylvania Ave. Instead these minions of destruction and mayhem would rather be gushed over by the Leftist media and Nancy Pelosi> They need to be pancaked by several semis, bulldozers, and the Tea Party Express bus.
#50. To: Liberator (#43)
[Liberator #35] REALLY?? Now you're going to go with, "Garner was strangled!"??[Liberator #43] You're conflating two separate observations (still gonna stay with your "strangled" claim??)
Of course, I did not claim that Garner was strangled. It is sad that you must make believe that I did.
[nolu chan #31]
The finding of petechial hemorrhages was made by the Medical Examiner at the morgue.http://www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs/education/medical/
Medical examinersPathologists—medical doctors who specialize in anatomical or functional abnormalities of a human body—with a special forensic training work as medical examiners and conduct medico-legal autopsies. Meet Drs. Marcela Fierro and David Fowler, who speak about their career and experiences as the chief medical examiners of Virginia and Maryland, respectively.
[excerpt]
Petechial hemorrhage
[Dr. Fierro]: Petechial hemorrhages are small pinpoint hemorrhages generally seen and looked for in the lining of the eyes in the conjunctiva, either that of the lids which is called palpebral conjunctiva or the bulbar, that covering the bulb of the eye and they generally are sign of terminal asphyxia. Now what's interesting of course is what causes people to have petechae in the first place and it's generally because there's increased intravascular pressure that causes the small end vessels of the capillaries to rupture. When do you have that? You have that when you breathe against resistance or try and breathe against resistance. So what would cause that? Well, 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. So generally petechae are something that you need to account for—you have to explain those.
Eric Garner did not compress his own neck or strangle himself.
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:
- smothering
- strangulation
- anything that compresses the neck
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.
#52. To: Liberator (#48)
And your opinion in either case IS???.....
Based on state laws of Florida, once the claim of self-defense was injected by George Zimmerman, the prosecution was required to prove that George Zimmerman did not believe his life was threatened. Zimmerman's statements taken by the police were able to be used in evidence to make his claim of self-defense. He did not testify. Disproving his claim was essentially impossible.
In the Brown case, there is similar Missouri state law. Having nothing to do with being an LE, the claim of self-defense operates similar to Florida.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/55600000512.html
Until December 31, 2016--Burden of injecting the issue.556.051. When the phrase "The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue" is used in the code, it means
(1) The issue referred to is not submitted to the trier of fact unless supported by evidence; and
(2) If the issue is submitted to the trier of fact any reasonable doubt on the issue requires a finding for the defendant on that issue.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-01-79
*This section was repealed by S.B. 491, 2014, effective 1-01-17. Due to the delayed repeal date, the version of this section in effect until 12-31-16 is printed here.
In Brown/Wilson, the statements of Wilson to the grand jury would be the required quantum of evidence to submit the issue of justification by reason of self-defence.
Wilson could decline to testify at trial and submit himself to cross-examination. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to prove that Wilson did not believe his life was in danger. There need not be any finding that Wilson's life was actually in danger. There need be only an absence of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Wilson thought his life was in danger.
#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).The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. "Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury `can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.' " United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U. S. ___, ___ (1991) (slip op. 4) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even "the precisenature of the offense" it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, at 59-60, 65, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day to day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra, at 343. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U. S., at 424-425.
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.
#54. To: nolu chan (#52)
I actually wanted your personal opinion given the facts, personal observations, and circumstances in each case.
Did YOU believe Zimmerman felt his life was in danger? He WAS assaulted with the first blow from Martin, was he not??
Moreover, did you believe Trayvon was casing out the complex for a possible burglary? Since when is protecting one's turf or home with a firearm a federal/state offense?? Yet that's where we are.
Regarding Wilson, DID indeed testify on his own behalf....That case wasn't close to indictable of LE. Yet, why was the looting and lawlessness tolerated (in your opinion?) And doesn't LE owe the citizenry protection against looting, shutting down stores, roads, and commerce instead of ignoring it? Is it becase lawyers like you would try and indict for murder the shooting of an anarcjists who are willing to martyr themselves? THAT makes the REST of us victims of YOUR legal threats and scrutiny of law enforcement (but not of scoff laws and criminals.)
This nation is rapidly plunging into anarchy and a moral abyss because ACLU/SPLC types fog up the difference between right and wrong. You can either help us regain the right track, or contribute to this runaway freight train of moral relativism. We have ourselves enough Ron Kubys out there...
American Law and Justice has always been based on morality. Much of it derived from Biblical principles and common sense. Lately it's based on the political winds, il-logic, and irrationality. You may rationalize that you're merely citing "law," but the heavy--handed interpretation of humanists and leftists are subverting it. Technicalities make a mockery of justice.
#55. To: Liberator (#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.
#56. To: Liberator (#54)
Regarding Wilson, DID indeed testify on his own behalf....That case wasn't close to indictable of LE.
A grand jury is not a judicial proceeding. "Testify. To bear witness; to give evidence as a witness; to make a solemn declaration, under oath or affirmation, in a judicial inquiry, for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact."
Wilson did not subject himself to cross-examination by a hostile opposing counsel. He appeared before a grand jury with a very friendly District Attorney. It is not like testifying at trial.
#57. To: Liberator (#54)
Did YOU believe Zimmerman felt his life was in danger? He WAS assaulted with the first blow from Martin, was he not??
Zimmerman stated all the elements for a case of self-defense. Martin is dead, there is no video. I do not believe Zimmerman's life was in danger. He may have believed it was. That is enough for probable doubt under the law.
#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.
#59. To: Liberator (#54)
Moreover, did you believe Trayvon was casing out the complex for a possible burglary?
No.
Since when is protecting one's turf or home with a firearm a federal/state offense??
Its not. Neither is wearing a hoodie or walking home.
#60. To: Vinny, nolu chan, e_type_ jag, CZ82, nativist nationalist, redleghunter (#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.
Weighed and determined to lack enough evidence of intent to maim/kill. The 350 lb hostile behemoth's bad health was obviously an attributed factor. Though Pantaleo was very aggressive in his take down, a surgical neck hold of a 350 lb man just wasn't possible. He death was obviously accidental and most likely shocking to Pantaleo.
Despite the verdict, the damage to LE is done, and THAT is what is accomplished by the Commie/ACLU/SPLC Anarchists types. It fulfills an agenda. It was never about about individual rights or "racism."
The new Rules of Engagement for LE -- as with the military in Iraq/Afghanistan -- will cost MANY more LEOs their lives. Not only that, the criminal element (including these punk "Occupy" anarchists) will be THAT much more emboldened to challenge law enforcement at every turn. JUST AS IN THE CASE OF TERRORISTS. THIS case will be considered a watershed moment for all of civilized society. In a bad way. The hood will become an even more dangerous place. Look for black/brown-only cops policing in those areas in the very near future.
The disruptions from Anarchists will be commonplace. NYC's Finest meter maids will certainly have NO time to enforce bans on cigarette and Tic-Tac sales. Drug sales, prostitution, and extortion will mushroom now. Inner-City Plantation murders start doubling....NOW. If there were 300 ChiTowm murders in 2014, expect 600 in the year 2015. Cops will NOT give a rats azz.
#61. To: Vinny (#58)
It was a homicide.You're wrong.
Criminal negligent homicide was considered by the GJ and rejected, therefore it wasn't a homicide.
Sorry.
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.
#62. To: Liberator (#60)
Weighed and determined to lack enough evidence of intent to maim/kill.
No true bill returned by the grand jury. There has been no public revelation of precisely what they evidence they considered, or whether their failure to return a true bill was based on a lack of intent.
It could be true. How do you know? Have you seen a newspaper leak? Link to it.
#63. To: nolu chan (#55)
btw, they can always convene another grand jury for the same charges or additional charges. That is not double jeopardy.
Wouldn't surprise me. But be careful for that for what you wish. The more facts that become exposed, the more the Left or supposed "victimized" perp is exposed as having a history of participating in crime and mayhem.
If no charge not including a required element of intent was available to the grand jury, the procedure was a farce.
Any charge that purposely and selectively changes the criteria of Grand Jury decision would be a farce in my eyes.
There was an "intent" to subdue the perp. PERIOD. Maybe you believe the perp should have handed the meter maid his medical report before mouthing off and daring LE to kick his azz.
#64. To: Liberator (#60)
Though Pantaleo was very aggressive in his take down, a surgical neck hold of a 350 lb man just wasn't possible. He death was obviously accidental and most likely shocking to Pantaleo.
The Medical Examiner ruled out accidental death and found homicide - a death by unnatural causes not attributable to accident. Pantaleo did not put a chokehold on Garner by accident. What you mean is that the death was unintentional.
#65. To: nolu chan (#62)
There has been no public revelation of precisely what they evidence they considered, or whether their failure to return a true bill was based on a lack of intent.
Why should there be? So your anarchist brethren could shut down every road in the nation? Every store in every mall across America?
I'd like to see Fatso's rap sheet. His prison record. How many A&Bs and B&Es he's got. How he's been subsidized with taxpayer money. And how long he's been a public nuisance and criminal. I'd looove for someone like you to live a WEEK next door to this guy. OR in the bowels of the hood as bullets are whizzing thru the windows next door. You have NO clue.
Frankly, you just want your pound of flesh. And blood in the streets. And damn the citizenry, damn the nation, damn law and order. You'll get it...eventually, don't worry.
#66. To: nolu chan (#64)
What you mean is that the death was unintentional.
Spare me the assault by a thousand semantic micro-cuts. We're NOT in a court room. Accidental/Unintentional -- their meaning is separated by a baby's whisker.
#67. To: Liberator (#63)
Wouldn't surprise me. But be careful for that for what you wish. The more facts that become exposed, the more the Left or supposed "victimized" perp is exposed as having a history of participating in crime and mayhem.
Any prior history of Garner of selling loosies is irrelevant.
The priors on Pantaleo are more relevant. You are aware that NYC paid $30,000 to settle a prior complaint against Pantaleo and other lawsuits are pending.
A federal investigation may not be so friendly as a Staten Island DA.
EXCLUSIVE: In 179 fatalities involving on-duty NYPD cops in 15 years, only 3 cases led to indictments — and just 1 convictionA Daily News analysis of NYPD-involved deaths starts with the 1999 slaying of unarmed Amadou Diallo in a hail of bullets in the Bronx and ends with last month’s shooting death of Akai Gurley in a Brooklyn stairwell. Where race was known, 86% were black or Hispanic.
BY Sarah Ryley, Nolan Hicks, Thomas Tracy, John Marzulli, Dareh Gregorian
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, December 8, 2014, 2:30 AMA Staten Island grand jury’s decision not to indict white NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo for the chokehold death of Eric Garner — a black father of six — stunned large swaths of the city and added fuel to a nationwide surge of protests over police killings.
But history shows the odds were always in Pantaleo’s favor.
A Daily News investigation found that at least 179 people were killed by on-duty NYPD officers over the past 15 years. Just three of the deaths have led to an indictment in state court. In another case, a judge threw out the indictment on technical grounds and it was not reinstated.
Only one officer who killed someone while on duty has been convicted, but he was not sentenced to jail time.
The analysis of the police-involved deaths begins with the 1999 slaying of unarmed Amadou Diallo in a hail of bullets and ends with last month’s shooting death of Akai Gurley, who police say was hit by a ricocheting bullet fired by a rookie cop in a darkened housing project stairwell in Brooklyn. Gurley was also unarmed.
[...]
James Young, a 49-year-old father of three, fell into a coma and later died after he was choked by a narcotics detective “for an extended period of time” until he started foaming at the mouth and lost consciousness, a lawsuit claims. The Brooklyn district attorney declined to prosecute the case, and the civil lawsuit was settled for $832,500 in June.
[...]
A mentally ill woman, Shereese Francis, 29, of Queens, died of heart failure in 2012 after being suffocated by four male officers who were called to get her in an ambulance because she hadn’t been taking her meds, another lawsuit claims.
After a 14-month investigation that included several home visits and interviews with family members who were present on the day of the death, the Queens DA declined to prosecute, according to court records. The family was awarded $1.1 million in a civil lawsuit in May.
[...]
Anthony Baez, 29, was tossing a football around with his brothers in the Bronx when the ball hit a squad car in 1994. Officer Frank Livoti became enraged and squeezed the life out of Baez with a chokehold. A Bronx grand jury indicted him and he was acquitted by a judge of criminally negligent homicide.
Livoti was convicted in 1998 of federal civil rights violations and served nearly seven years in prison.
[...]
#68. To: Liberator (#63)
Any charge that purposely and selectively changes the criteria of Grand Jury decision would be a farce in my eyes.
Any criminal charge for which all the elements are present and provable should be charged. Holding a grand jury for the purpose of not obtaining an indictment by leaving out an indictable charge is a farce.
#69. To: Liberator (#66)
Spare me the assault by a thousand semantic micro-cuts. We're NOT in a court room. Accidental/Unintentional -- their meaning is separated by a baby's whisker.
The death was a homicide and an accidental cause was ruled out. Stop trying to put in what you already know cannot be there.
#70. To: nolu chan (#64)
Pantaleo did not put a chokehold on Garner by accident.
You can twist the semantics and Webster's Dictionary into a knot for all I care. When a criminal or perp is being subdued, SOME part of their body is going to be bound or pressured. Wanna call it a "choke"-hold? Fine. But let it be known that Garner's rejection of intending to follow the law was no accident either.
Garner intentionally forced a confrontation; Nay he WELCOMED IT. He knew if he didn't comply after the initial courtesy request and began yelling and screaming like a deranged banshee that back-up was coming. And that it wouldn't be pleasant. DESPITE the fact that he KNEW his bad case of asthma might act up.
#71. To: Liberator (#65)
There has been no public revelation of precisely what they evidence they considered, or whether their failure to return a true bill was based on a lack of intent.Why should there be?
So you can explain your inside knowledge of the grand jury proceedings.
[Liberator #60] Weighed and determined to lack enough evidence of intent to maim/kill.
It would facilitate explaining how you know what the grand jury weighed and determined. If you admit of no public revelation to support your comment, do you imply that you have a non-public revelation that you just leaked? Of course, you may have been just blowing more hot air.
#72. To: Liberator (#70)
Garner intentionally forced a confrontation; Nay he WELCOMED IT. He knew if he didn't comply after the initial courtesy request and began yelling and screaming like a deranged banshee that back-up was coming. And that it wouldn't be pleasant. DESPITE the fact that he KNEW his bad case of asthma might act up.
Can you please post the video of of Garner yelling and screaming like a deranged banshee?
#73. To: Liberator (#70)
You can twist the semantics and Webster's Dictionary into a knot for all I care. When a criminal or perp is being subdued, SOME part of their body is going to be bound or pressured.
In Garner's case, his neck was compressed causing hemorrhages, violating NY law and NYPD policy in the process. Also, his chest was compressed while on the ground. The result was death by homicide. And it is Black's Law Dictionary, not Websters.
#74. To: nolu chan (#67)
EXCLUSIVE: In 179 fatalities involving on-duty NYPD cops in 15 years, only 3 cases led to indictments — and just 1 conviction
In a city of 7 million? That's incredibly good.
#75. To: nolu chan (#67)
The analysis of the police-involved deaths begins with the 1999 slaying of unarmed Amadou Diallo in a hail of bullets and ends with last month’s shooting death of Akai Gurley...
REALLY??? Going back 15 YEARS???
Let's go back to....LAST WEEK when the Bosnian white who was just bludgeon to death with a hammer by perpetually angry black thugs...IN THE NAME OF Ferguson's celebrated cigar-smoking, Gentle Giant criminal and bully, Fatty Brown. No, "it" never ends for the perpetually aggrieved Plantation Blacks who btw are responsible for 95% of ALL homicides OF OTHER BLACKS. They've turned they communitahs into shooting galleries, and people like you want to blame WHITEY. We're NOT having any of it, pal.
#76. To: nolu chan (#67)
Where race was known, 86% were black or Hispanic.
Might that be because 90% of the crime and murders are perpetrated by blacks or Hispanics who happen by and large to reside in the Plantation??
If you want to play with racial crime stats, you'll lose this Big Time. And you know it.
Look -- 98% of all Plantation blacks have been taught from the crib to hate whitey, blame whitey, and KILL whitey. The stats back up that assertion. Having no dads in the house isn't Whitey's fault; neither is it Whitey's fault that the Plantation Blacks choose to be prisoners and saboteurs of their own environment and ethic that rejects education as "acting too white." Whitey is hated that much.
They are not so much intent on obtaining justice, but REVENGE. It is a fact in places like South Africa, Zimbabwe, and anywhere whites have given the reigns over to black leadership. That NOW includes...AMERICA and it's so-called leaders. NUFF SAID. Don't think we're all ignorant on that score. MLK's "Dream" has already been realized, but since your ilk have moved the goal posts to the "Hope & Change" of "KILL WHITEY," the Game is entirely different.
#77. To: nolu chan (#72)
Can you please post the video of of Garner yelling and screaming like a deranged banshee?
Would you also like video of Hitler stating that he wanted to kill every Jews on the planet? Oh wait -- there IS none? I guess he's owed 6 million apologies.
I saw only the part the videographer chose to edit. Garner was definitely yelling at the meter maid in a threatening manner (I'm assuming the deranged banshee part -- you got me, Counselor :-) It's probably taped on the earlier part of his rant; the part that's conveniently NOT available for public viewing. Six LEOs just don't arrive all hopped up to the kick azz of a civilized gentleman. Logical deduction in MY world presumes they were most likely told Garner was out of hand and refusing to comply.
#78. To: nolu chan (#61)
Another human being killed Eric Garner. That is homicide.
You are still wrong.
The word justifiable is your friend.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]