Page 222 of 276 FirstFirst ... 122172212220221222223224232272 ... LastLast
Results 2,211 to 2,220 of 2756

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

  1. #2211
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I work with PR people too. If you do as well, you would know that a PR person summing up a 27 page report isn't an official legal statement, correct? Maybe you don't.
    Do you? I'm surprised you'd make such a ridiculous comparison then. What firm do you work with? Edelman? W2O? It would seem you have the crazy idea that all PR people have the same types of jobs. However, getting back to the issue that's not what she did at all. She stated what the death was ruled a homicide. You can spin that 10 ways from Sunday but stating that the death was ruled a homicide means it was caused by someone else's actions. That you're trying to sit here and make every excuse possible to bring doubt to what she said - WHEN SHE HAS NO REASON TO MAKE IT UP - is just... mindblogging. I really thought you'd be far more reasonable than this.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #2212
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    ...yes... intentional meaning "volitional..." as I've been trying to explain to you.

    I also EXPLICITLY typed (numerous times and right from the start) that I did NOT accuse the officers of intending to kill Garner. It is that they chose a course of actions that led to his death. He wasn't run over by a truck whose brakes failed; he did not have a cardiac arrest by sheer coincidence when an officer was nearby; he didn't kill himself; the ME didn't punt. The ME declared it a homicide.



    apdst did, which is why we went down this particular rabbit hole to begin with. http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1064059490

    Thanks for jumping in, though. It's been a fruitful discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    And one more time, because you keep ignoring your own words in your links.

    Homicide does not always mean "intentional", as you claimed. The ME declaring it a homicide does not mean it was an intentional death. You have to prove intent here - did the officer intend for him to die, yes or no?
    Couldn't this be negligent homicide?

    Quote Originally Posted by USlegal.com
    Negligent homicide is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It often includes death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of a boat or snowmobile. It is characterized as a death caused by death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care. Negligent homicide may be charged as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter. It is also sometimes referred to as "involuntary manslaughter". State laws vary, so local law should be consulted for specific requirements.

    ...
    (2) A person who violates subdivision (a) (1) of this section is guilty of a Class C felony.

    (b) (1) A person who commits negligent homicide if he or she negligently causes the death of another person. A person who violates subdivision (b) (1) of this section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #2213
    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 Visbek View Post
    My statement is accurate. Again, from the ME's handbook http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_me.pdf

    Natural—‘‘due solely or nearly totally to disease and/or the aging process.’’

    Accident—‘‘there is little or no evidence that the injury or poisoning occurred with intent to harm or cause death. In essence, the fatal outcome
    was unintentional.’’

    Suicide—‘‘results from an injury or poisoning as a result of an intentional,self-inflicted act committed to do self-harm or cause the death of one’s
    self.’’

    Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’

    Could not be determined—‘‘used when the information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling than one or more other competing manners of death when all available information is considered.’’

    Pending investigation—used when determination of manner depends on further information.



    The ME did not declared Garner's death a homicide, not an accident. And yet again, I am not saying any of the officers actually wanted to kill Garner. It's that they made a deliberate choice to restrain Garner, and that action caused his death.

    Do you really not understand this yet?
    You still aren't reading that correctly, have skipped over the word "or" and have somehow manufactured "deliberate" into the mix now.

    Btw, had they just cuffed the guy standing and he died from stress induced heart attack on the spot, the autopsy may not have read "Natural", but still have read "Homicide". MEs do this sometimes to trigger a greater investigation into the events.

    Here's that "or" you keep thinking is an "and":

    Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’
    Last edited by clownboy; 12-05-14 at 10:55 PM.

  4. #2214
    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 Visbek View Post
    Mmmm. So I skipped the important part (despite actually reading all of the definitions in the handbook). You, in contrast, seem to have missed that the ME declared Garner's death a homicide.

    Yeesh.
    And quote where I ever posted he didn't rule it as a homicide. That wasn't the discussion. I believe you did read all the material, once again I don't believe you put aside your bias long enough to understand what it says.

  5. #2215
    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 Μολὼν λαβέ View Post
    The naysayers are all in denial. All they have to do is watch the video to clearly see who killed whom.


    After 222 pages and someone is still without a clue. No, in fact, he doesn't die in the video, no one is killed in the video. The actions in the video are a few of the things that contributed to his death.

  6. #2216
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,903

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by Μολὼν λαβέ View Post
    Take off the blinders. The police officer killed Eric Garner. Deal with it.

    Instigated a rush to justice? He was killed about four months ago.

    Your bias is showing. Ever think there may be a special place in Hell for those who those who wish Hell on others?

    I'm not wearing blinders. No sir. But I have no doubt there will come a day that you will discover you are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

    It doesn't matter that he was killed 4 months ago, the Grand Jury has been debating the case for over 9 weeks. And with their decision coming off the heels of Ferguson it was prime to milk this verdict for all it was worth for special interests, after all it was a white cop that subdued a black criminal that resulted in his death.
    Today after Al Sharpton made a personal appearance with the widow of Garner, milking it for all he could get using her emotion to fuel it, he jotted off to another part of the country to do the eulogy at a funeral for another black man that was killed during an altercation with police with media coverage of course. Yeah, folks like Sharpton who like to be called Reverend, who use churches as a backdrop to promote hatred and discord among races, must have a special place in Hell with his name on it. I've attended the funerals of several officers who gave their life in law enforcement taken by some piece of slime who has no respect for life or the rule of law. I've heard the bagpipes played too many times over the years for these men. I have a niece in law enforcement. I know what she faces everyday on the job putting herself on the line to protect the innocent. I wonder how long it will be before she will be put into a position to be made a racist just for doing her job. Yeah there has to be a special place in Hell for people who provoke such divisiveness.

  7. #2217
    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 Visbek View Post
    ...yes... intentional meaning "volitional..." as I've been trying to explain to you.

    I also EXPLICITLY typed (numerous times and right from the start) that I did NOT accuse the officers of intending to kill Garner. It is that they chose a course of actions that led to his death. He wasn't run over by a truck whose brakes failed; he did not have a cardiac arrest by sheer coincidence when an officer was nearby; he didn't kill himself; the ME didn't punt. The ME declared it a homicide.



    apdst did, which is why we went down this particular rabbit hole to begin with. http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1064059490

    Thanks for jumping in, though. It's been a fruitful discussion.
    You are still refusing to read that fateful "or" in the definition. And there's a reason the manual uses the word "volitional" and not "intentional". They are not synonymous here.

    Not only that, but it's NOT just a volitional act, but a "volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death".
    Last edited by clownboy; 12-05-14 at 10:56 PM.

  8. #2218
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,917

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    The crazy thing about all this, to me, is that the grand jury's job isn't to determine culpability, it is simply to determine if something happened that needs determination as to whether the guy involved was to blame. This particular case seems absolutely open and shut regarding that. It is simply baffling to me that a grand jury looked at the tape and said "nah, this doesn't have to go to trial." Utterly mind-boggling.

    One thing that happened in both this case and the Ferguson case that is a major deviation from protocol is allowing the focus of the grand jury hearing -- the police officers involved -- to make statements to the grand jury. The cop in the Garner case talked for two hours to the grand jury about how he didn't mean to hurt Garner. Prosecutors simply don't treat cop defendants like regular defendants.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  9. #2219
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,028

    Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Couldn't this be negligent homicide?
    I would think so. I dont think the cop was purposely trying to kill Garner. But I do think he was "accidentally using lethal force" while not accidentally using overzealous force. He knew he was being too rough. He just didnt know it would cause death.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  10. #2220
    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 Kobie View Post
    The crazy thing about all this, to me, is that the grand jury's job isn't to determine culpability, it is simply to determine if something happened that needs determination as to whether the guy involved was to blame. This particular case seems absolutely open and shut regarding that. It is simply baffling to me that a grand jury looked at the tape and said "nah, this doesn't have to go to trial." Utterly mind-boggling.

    One thing that happened in both this case and the Ferguson case that is a major deviation from protocol is allowing the focus of the grand jury hearing -- the police officers involved -- to make statements to the grand jury. The cop in the Garner case talked for two hours to the grand jury about how he didn't mean to hurt Garner. Prosecutors simply don't treat cop defendants like regular defendants.
    First, that's not the grand jury's duty.

    The grand jury's accusatory function is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offense
    It basically looks over the prosecutor's evidence and decides if it's sufficient for an indictment.

    Second, we don't know for sure, but I think it's a given that the video wasn't the only piece of evidence they examined. There is quite a lot about the event that those videos do not cover. And yes, videos, as in more than the one we see everywhere.

    That last paragraph is not true. And again, grand jurors are allowed to ask questions of the witnesses directly, there is no time constraint.
    Last edited by clownboy; 12-05-14 at 11:44 PM.

Posting Permissions

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