Page 187 of 276 FirstFirst ... 87137177185186187188189197237 ... LastLast
Results 1,861 to 1,870 of 2756

Thread: No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903,2680]

  1. #1861
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    All I can say is that if all you got from this incident is that the cigarette tax is bs, then you really need to reevaluate things.
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  2. #1862
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,494

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    But one also has to weigh the amount of pressure that was applied. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, and the preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garnerís windpipe or neck bones. However, a man in such poor health with acute asthma, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity it wouldn't take a whole lot of pressure to cut the man's wind off.
    That's a fair statement and surely why the ME listed his health issues as contributory. Still to say his overeating killed him is incorrect.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  3. #1863
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,725

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    It's not BS at all. If a police officer tries to pull over a car for speeding and the driver takes off, smashing into a tree and killing himself, was the driver killed for speeding?

    not comparable. the little cop with the "D.D." on his shirt backs off a claim he saw garner sell a loosie, then the video shows garner putting his hands up and saying "nuh uh" os somesuch, immediatly officer choke hold puts him into a choke hold and takes him down.


    Why the rush to violence?




    As for the lawful detention - that's for the police officer or the police department to defend, not me. As far as I'm concerned, if a police officer, carrying out his/her duties, says you've committed a crime and I'm taking you in, that's a lawful detention until such time as a judge or court rules otherwise. Citizens on the street don't get to determine what's legal or not in our society. If they did, we wouldn't have a society, we'd have chaos.

    Well let me let you in on something.




    "Objective 4

    a. An investigative detention is a limited seizure, is temporary.

    b. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum justification for a detention: suspect that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person stopped is involved.

    c. Example: Match description of a person wanted, police officer’s experience, looks as if he might be committing a crime, furtive movements. The sources of facts to build reasonable suspicion are basically unlimited as long as they are credible. The officer’s own knowledge and senses are an obvious source, but reasonable suspicion need not be limited to those. The officer may also use other sources of information. These include sources, which can be revealed, such as verbal communications with other officers, information from identified reliable sources in the community, radio dispatches, police bulletins, hot sheets, anonymous tips where the facts have been corroborated, or criminal informants who have been reliable in the past (Their identities can be protected.).
    In a recent case, Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000), the Supreme Court asserted that while unexplained flight from police by itself will not produce reasonable suspicion for a detention, the flight is a pertinent factor in developing that reasonable suspicion. In Wardlow, the fact that the defendant fled police as they arrived in a high crime area was sufficient to justify the stop. There were previous decisions asserting flight as an exercise of the right to freedom of movement that, as a right, could not be used to build reasonable suspicion. Those cases have been superseded.
    In another case, Florida v. J.L., 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the basic requirements for investigative detentions and frisks as articulated in Terry v. Ohio. The Court held that a frisk cannot be based entirely on an uncorroborated, non-predictive anonymous tip, even if it turns out the tip was accurate. The Court did leave open the possibility that anonymous tips regarding serious situations such as a bomb threat, or an armed person at an airport, or about a weapon in a school would be sufficient.

    d. For detention, time should be a reasonable length of time during which reasonable suspicion is maintained or strengthened. It must stop is reasonable suspicion disappears. A rule of thumb is 20 to 30 minutes. Force should only be a reasonable amount. Deadly force should never be used. Detained person should not be moved, except for safety of officer or suspect or with suspect’s consent.

    e. Need to articulate a reason for using the cuffs, i.e., suspect was belligerent. State v. Pfleiderer, 8 S.W.3d 249 (1999), held that use of handcuffs in a detention situation where the officer cannot or does not articulate a reasonable justification for the handcuffing makes the detention a de facto arrest. It is presumed that the use of handcuffs is associated with arrests. Officers will need to overcome that presumption by explaining why the cuffs were necessary.


    f. A frisk is authorized if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is armed and dangerous.

    g. Miranda is probably required if asking guilt-seeking questions.

    h. The officer can really do nothing if the suspect refuses to talk, cannot be compelled to give evidence against oneself. Some communities have "required identification" ordinances. These are of questionable Constitutionality."


    CONTACT, DETENTION AND ARREST


    There is case law on this.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #1864
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    In the videos i posted last page back i wonder why a cop can take the time to flush out the eyes of a kung fu guy charging at them and make sure hes ok. But the cops cant attempt to resuscitate the fat guy after using greater force than in the kung fu situation? Do people really hate fat people that much? Its because some of these ****in cops walk around thinking that these people are scum. And they dont care.
    Cops don't have the gear to do that safely, paramedics do.

  5. #1865
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Your earlier point, unless I am confusing you with another is that this wasn't due to a tax issue of selling untaxed cigarettes.
    You're slightly confused. I said Eric Garner didn't die because he was selling cigarettes, taxed or otherwise. He resisted arrest and in the process of enforcing that arrest, he expired. The underlying crime is not relevant to the consequences except to the extent that we can all agree that's a pretty stupid thing to die over. He could have been prostituting himself, breaking into parking meters, any number of other petty crimes and died while resisting arrest.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #1866
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    They have effectively killed the spirit of capatilism and free market with how they have it set up. If they have mandated minimum pricing that you have to sell the cigerettes for... That totally kills the possibility of someone starting a local indoor, super effecient, cost effect hydroponic tabacco farm business and selling packs for 1.50$ a pack. Once again forcing corporations to catch up with the times instead of having control while being obsolete.

    At least with flat tax, no price setting the city could still make money off the massive business going to the more effecient setup with a perfectly balanced price for the times.

    This is the age of renovation and revolution through effeciency. Dont a handfull of words written down somewhere stop that.....
    I don't disagree. I should clarify, however, that I believe the bylaw states a minimum at which the cigarettes can be sold, not a fixed price. Someone can sell them for more, I suppose, if they have a willing market.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  7. #1867
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    not comparable. the little cop with the "D.D." on his shirt backs off a claim he saw garner sell a loosie, then the video shows garner putting his hands up and saying "nuh uh" os somesuch, immediatly officer choke hold puts him into a choke hold and takes him down.


    Why the rush to violence?







    Well let me let you in on something.




    "Objective 4

    a. An investigative detention is a limited seizure, is temporary.

    b. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum justification for a detention: suspect that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person stopped is involved.

    c. Example: Match description of a person wanted, police officer’s experience, looks as if he might be committing a crime, furtive movements. The sources of facts to build reasonable suspicion are basically unlimited as long as they are credible. The officer’s own knowledge and senses are an obvious source, but reasonable suspicion need not be limited to those. The officer may also use other sources of information. These include sources, which can be revealed, such as verbal communications with other officers, information from identified reliable sources in the community, radio dispatches, police bulletins, hot sheets, anonymous tips where the facts have been corroborated, or criminal informants who have been reliable in the past (Their identities can be protected.).
    In a recent case, Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000), the Supreme Court asserted that while unexplained flight from police by itself will not produce reasonable suspicion for a detention, the flight is a pertinent factor in developing that reasonable suspicion. In Wardlow, the fact that the defendant fled police as they arrived in a high crime area was sufficient to justify the stop. There were previous decisions asserting flight as an exercise of the right to freedom of movement that, as a right, could not be used to build reasonable suspicion. Those cases have been superseded.
    In another case, Florida v. J.L., 120 S.Ct. 1375 (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the basic requirements for investigative detentions and frisks as articulated in Terry v. Ohio. The Court held that a frisk cannot be based entirely on an uncorroborated, non-predictive anonymous tip, even if it turns out the tip was accurate. The Court did leave open the possibility that anonymous tips regarding serious situations such as a bomb threat, or an armed person at an airport, or about a weapon in a school would be sufficient.

    d. For detention, time should be a reasonable length of time during which reasonable suspicion is maintained or strengthened. It must stop is reasonable suspicion disappears. A rule of thumb is 20 to 30 minutes. Force should only be a reasonable amount. Deadly force should never be used. Detained person should not be moved, except for safety of officer or suspect or with suspect’s consent.

    e. Need to articulate a reason for using the cuffs, i.e., suspect was belligerent. State v. Pfleiderer, 8 S.W.3d 249 (1999), held that use of handcuffs in a detention situation where the officer cannot or does not articulate a reasonable justification for the handcuffing makes the detention a de facto arrest. It is presumed that the use of handcuffs is associated with arrests. Officers will need to overcome that presumption by explaining why the cuffs were necessary.


    f. A frisk is authorized if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is armed and dangerous.

    g. Miranda is probably required if asking guilt-seeking questions.

    h. The officer can really do nothing if the suspect refuses to talk, cannot be compelled to give evidence against oneself. Some communities have "required identification" ordinances. These are of questionable Constitutionality."


    CONTACT, DETENTION AND ARREST


    There is case law on this.
    Which neither counters nor discounts anything I've said.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  8. #1868
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    While I'm sure there are several videos about this very obvious display of police brutality, I think people should watch this version of what transpired between the NYPD & Eric Garner. But first. ...

    Per eyewitness account, the man wasn't selling cigarettes. He had just broke up a fight before police arrived on the scene and was subsequently harassed under the suspension of selling single cigarettes, a crime in NYC.

    The indie DJ makes some very valid points at the end of the video. Watch. ... No arrest pronouncement. No warning. Just straight up assault on a private citizen who did a good thing but ends up dead due to the actions of over zealous cops.

    Watch. ...

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Njrs5ns8nbI


    .

  9. #1869
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,725

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Which neither counters nor discounts anything I've said.


    Well if you think so. *shrug*
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #1870
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    I believe police officers should be held accountable as well. IN fact these police officers WERE held accountable. What pisses everyone off was that after 9 weeks of careful deliberation it was found that their was no law broken. Everyone has been stirred into a demand for justice on an incomplete video they believe shows things it demonstrably doesn't.

    While I agree with your approach in theory I can't help but come to the conclusion that a lot of people, in an effort to fight back against police vigilantism have become vigilantes themselves.
    Again, the response of other people is totally irrelevant. And that's not what was was decided. This was not a trial, it was a grand jury.

    What is your standard for an indictment? If the police officer pistol whipped the guy, would that have been okay too? Or if they shot him point blank? Would that be okay? Do you really think that that officer should be free to patrol the streets again?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •