• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

TheDemSocialist said:
Its not about her actions if they were blocking an entrance. Its about was it or was it not excessive force? I fail to see how this was not excessive force.
Click to expand...

How should they have handled it?
 
Let me remind those of you supporting Nichols, that this happened in the Capital of the North-Left coast...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the justice system disagrees with you and agrees with me.
Click to expand...

Are you really going to go all in by allying with a jury ruling? I ask this because it makes as much sense as saying OJ Simpson truly didn't do it.
 
poweRob said:
Are you really going to go all in by allying with a jury ruling? I ask this because it makes as much sense as saying OJ Simpson truly didn't do it.
Click to expand...
I didn't think OJ was guilty either. There were facts of the case that looks like he was framed.

Funny, how a jury from a very liberal area doesn't support a 99%er. Why might that be?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Pepper spray jury rules against Nichols

Just saw a blip on this in the local news. I'm glad she didn't win her lawsuit. Most of occupy Portland was pretty calm. In fact, mayor Sam Adams openly walked among and talked with the protesters in one location. When people violate the free movement of others, I'm OK with pepperspray.



pepper-spray-girl.jpg
Click to expand...

I see the US right love the police state they are helping to create.. as long as it is against so called "left wingers".. pathetic.
 
PeteEU said:
I see the US right love the police state they are helping to create.. as long as it is against so called "left wingers".. pathetic.
Click to expand...

Every time lefties get their wrists slapped for bad behavior they cry about a "police state" like kiddygardeners throwing temper tantrums because there are rules. Waaaah-waaaaah-waaaaaah.
 
Papa bull said:
Every time lefties get their wrists slapped for bad behavior they cry about a "police state" like kiddygardeners throwing temper tantrums because there are rules. Waaaah-waaaaah-waaaaaah.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that it should be illegal to protest or is that only for the left wing that it should be illegal for?

And as for rules.. yea there is one rule for the left and one for the right.. when the right finally protest over something instead of just accepting every corporate order given to them.

It is odd that when the right protests the police do nothing, but when the left protests then in most cases they go charging in with riot police and rubber bullets...
 
PeteEU said:
I see the US right love the police state they are helping to create.. as long as it is against so called "left wingers".. pathetic.
Click to expand...

LOL. What a croc.

Groups protest things in the US very often. Their rights are respected and protected unless those protesting decide other people have no rights or the break the law. This woman that got peppered sprayed was no victim, she was the one (s) that was causing trouble.
 
nobody deserves being attacked by pepper sprays tear gases thrown at their faces at close range unless they attempt to rape,rob ,harrass anyone

in fact it should be thrown with a 45 degree angle
 
PeteEU said:
So you are saying that it should be illegal to protest or is that only for the left wing that it should be illegal for?
Click to expand...

How in the hell did you get that from what you read? Let me try to do this really simple. I wish I had a crayon to write this because maybe that would help.

Protest LEGALLY all you want. But don't block customers from going into a person's business because that's NOT legal. And if you don't get your ass out of the way when the police get there and ASK you to move, they might use more persuasive means and if you don't like that, get your ass out of the way when the ASK you to move out of the way. It's not a righty or a lefty thing except that lefties seem to be particularly stupid when it comes to understanding the difference between exercising their own rights and trampling the rights of others. And so they end up with knots on their heads and pepper spray in their faces.
 
Medusa said:
nobody deserves being attacked by pepper sprays tear gases thrown at their faces at close range unless they attempt to rape,rob ,harrass anyone

in fact it should be thrown with a 45 degree angle
Click to expand...

Guess again. If the police ask you to move and you're so hell bent on violating the rights of someone else that you won't, then pepper spray seems very much deserved. Especially so when they tell you they're gonna pepper spray your ass and you dare them to do it. :) Capsaicin; it's not just for breakfast anymore. It boosts the immune system, thins the blood and has a wide range of beneficial health effects. I guess you could say they just took their medicine.
 
Papa bull said:
Guess again. If the police ask you to move and you're so hell bent on violating the rights of someone else that you won't, then pepper spray seems very much deserved. Especially so when they tell you they're gonna pepper spray your ass and you dare them to do it. :) Capsaicin; it's not just for breakfast anymore. It boosts the immune system, thins the blood and has a wide range of beneficial health effects. I guess you could say they just took their medicine.
Click to expand...

except opening the sinuses!
 
Lord of Planar said:
I didn't think OJ was guilty either. There were facts of the case that looks like he was framed.

Funny, how a jury from a very liberal area doesn't support a 99%er. Why might that be?
Click to expand...

dunno. don't even know the case. Just making the point that it's weird if you think juries are never wrong.
 
PeteEU said:
So you are saying that it should be illegal to protest or is that only for the left wing that it should be illegal for?
Click to expand...

This had nothing to do because they were protesting. It's because they were violating other people's right.

Why is it that those who cry rights are violated, support protesters to violate other people's rights?
 
Medusa said:
nobody deserves being attacked by pepper sprays tear gases thrown at their faces at close range unless they attempt to rape,rob ,harrass anyone

in fact it should be thrown with a 45 degree angle
Click to expand...
I disagree.

How would you control the situation? Would you allow them to continue to violate other people's rights?

What if they were violating your rights?
 
poweRob said:
dunno. don't even know the case. Just making the point that it's weird if you think juries are never wrong.
Click to expand...

Juries do get it wrong from time to time. There is often a large grey area, especially when there isn't good evidence.

Think about it. Even with the video and photo clearly showing the incident, her lawsuit was denied. If you watch the video, hard to see, but it looks like she attacked an officer first. Maybe she was only aware of the photo, and not the video when she brought the lawsuit forward.
 
unlike those cops that peppersprayed those students sitting on a sidewalk on campus ( Berkeley?).. I think this situation warranted it.

the mob was actively engaged in the rights denials of others.. and were completely noncompliant ..... pepper spray is pretty much how LEO's handle such stuff now.

It could be much worse,they used to be warranted in using batons.... for the lady's pose in the picture, it would have been rather awkward to have a baton sticking out of the gigantic maw.
 
poweRob said:
dunno. don't even know the case. Just making the point that it's weird if you think juries are never wrong.
Click to expand...

People here are confusing the difference between a "petit jury" used in actual trials, and grand juries used in the USA to determine if there is probable cause to charge a person with a crime. Although all States authorize them, only about half the States use them and only 22 require the use. Then there is a concern about their actual value:

Rubber stamp for the prosecution:

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere "rubber stamp" for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government. Grand juries provide little protection to accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors. Grand juries have such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his job. Grand juries sometimes compel witnesses to testify without the presence of their attorneys. Evidence uncovered during the grand jury investigation can be used by the prosecutor in a later trial. Grand jurors also often lack the ability and knowledge to judge sophisticated cases and complicated federal laws. This puts them at the mercy of very well trained and experienced federal prosecutors. Grand jurors often hear only the prosecutor's side of the case and are usually persuaded by them. Grand juries almost always indict people on the prosecutor's recommendation. A chief judge of New York State’s highest court, Sol Wachtler, once said that grand juries were so pliable that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” And William J. Campbell, a former federal district judge in Chicago, noted: “[T]oday, the grand jury is the total captive of the prosecutor who, if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury.”
Click to expand...

Grand juries in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So essentially we have a situation where a citizen is claiming a crime has been committed. However, the Prosecutor does not want to indict the police, and is the person who presents the evidence to the Grand Jury for a determination of whether or not a crime occurred. Small wonder the Grand Jury decided not to recommend prosecution.
 
Captain Adverse said:
People here are confusing the difference between a "petit jury" used in actual trials, and grand juries used in the USA to determine if there is probable cause to charge a person with a crime. Although all States authorize them, only about half the States use them and only 22 require the use. Then there is a concern about their actual value:



Grand juries in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So essentially we have a situation where a citizen is claiming a crime has been committed. However, the Prosecutor does not want to indict the police, and is the person who presents the evidence to the Grand Jury for a determination of whether or not a crime occurred. Small wonder the Grand Jury decided not to recommend prosecution.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't she swear out a warrant against the officer(s) involved in front of the magistrate and initiate it herself?
 
Fisher said:
Why doesn't she swear out a warrant against the officer(s) involved in front of the magistrate and initiate it herself?
Click to expand...

Good question. Perhaps she tried but could not find a magistrate willing to sign off on it, claiming insufficient cause? Even if she did mange to get an officer arrested, the Prosecutor is still the one who decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with charges. I think the use of the Grand Jury allows the Prosecutor to point the finger, even if he was the one who didn't want to charge the officer.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Good question. Perhaps she tried but could not find a magistrate willing to sign off on it, claiming insufficient cause? Even if she did mange to get an officer arrested, the Prosecutor is still the one who decides if there is enough evidence to proceed with charges. I think the use of the Grand Jury allows the Prosecutor to point the finger, even if he was the one who didn't want to charge the officer.
Click to expand...

Doubt she thought of it. I do not agree with her position--I believe they had every right to pepper spray her, but there are multiple ways to skin a cat. If she really feels that she was wronged criminally and a magistrate or prosecutor won't act, then she could petition the court for the seldom heard of Writ of Mandamus, make her case, and if the court agreed, the Judge could compel the prosecutor/magistrate to act (not that the court likely would given the circumstances), but at least she would have her day in Court
 
Fisher said:
Doubt she thought of it. I do not agree with her position--I believe they had every right to pepper spray her, but there are multiple ways to skin a cat. If she really feels that she was wronged criminally and a magistrate or prosecutor won't act, then she could petition the court for the seldom heard of Writ of Mandamus, make her case, and if the court agreed, the Judge could compel the prosecutor/magistrate to act (not that the court likely would given the circumstances), but at least she would have her day in Court
Click to expand...

I don't agree with her position either. My OP was to explain the difference between what most people think of when they hear the word "jury" and a Grand Jury.

Of course, now I am confused a little about what went on here. It appears it might have been a civil action? I thought I read something about a grand jury refusing to indict for a criminal action? Anyway, now people know the difference between a Grand Jury and a "petit" jury, if nothing else. LOL
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Because you're a socialist.
Click to expand...

Of course.. Exactly what it is. My economic policy has direct correlation about my social philosophy.

Please try again.
 
Fisher said:
Doubt she thought of it. I do not agree with her position--I believe they had every right to pepper spray her, but there are multiple ways to skin a cat. If she really feels that she was wronged criminally and a magistrate or prosecutor won't act, then she could petition the court for the seldom heard of Writ of Mandamus, make her case, and if the court agreed, the Judge could compel the prosecutor/magistrate to act (not that the court likely would given the circumstances), but at least she would have her day in Court
Click to expand...

I think there is normally no way to force a prosecutor to indict someone. In some cases its due to what is called discretionary acts functions. IN other its either complete immunity or qualified immunity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom