• 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!

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

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

CRUE CAB said:
Your cop hate runethover. I know more people that are not cops that are vicious bar fighters.
Click to expand...

Oh no I think cops are great. I'd triple the number of them and double their pay.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Ryan5 said:
I don't think it's that big of a deal either. All cops are or have ever been are basically the guys that beat people at bars on their off hours. Everyone knows that cops are full of testosterone and probably would be out fighting if it wasn't for them being a cop instead. So no. It's not surprising that the cops are all tattooed up. Many cops are. That's fundamentally why these killings will never stop. The people who become cops are a pretty unstable crowd to begin with and aren't generally your 9-5 guy.
Click to expand...

Unreal.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:
Unreal.
Click to expand...

What's unreal about it?


Are you claiming that most cops are equivalent to lawyers, coders or bankers in their temper, demeanor and activities? Are you really? Let's be real. They aren't. They're societies brute squad that is paid just enough to enforce the law and just enough to not kill too many people doing it. Then again I'm not assuming you can handle that reality.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Ryan5 said:
I don't think it's that big of a deal either. All cops are or have ever been are basically the guys that beat people at bars on their off hours. Everyone knows that cops are full of testosterone and probably would be out fighting if it wasn't for them being a cop instead. So no. It's not surprising that the cops are all tattooed up. Many cops are. That's fundamentally why these killings will never stop. The people who become cops are a pretty unstable crowd to begin with and aren't generally your 9-5 guy.
Click to expand...


not biased in any way are you there?

one of my buddies is a sergeant in the capitol police......

5'10" white.....185 lbs......clean cut.......short hair.......no tattoos

without his uniform you wouldnt know what he did.....maybe a cpa, teacher, etc

in some jurisdictions, cops have to maintain a very professional look

depends on what your sheriff, chief, mayor, and council decide.......they always decide those things
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

gdgyva said:
not biased in any way are you there?

one of my buddies is a sergeant in the capitol police......

5'10" white.....185 lbs......clean cut.......short hair.......no tattoos

without his uniform you wouldnt know what he did.....maybe a cpa, teacher, etc

in some jurisdictions, cops have to maintain a very professional look

depends on what your sheriff, chief, mayor, and council decide.......they always decide those things
Click to expand...

In a majority (not all for sure) the videos of the extremely violently sadistic police are obese white shaved head skinheads.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Somewhere back in the dim distant pages of this thread, and in others on the same topic, there was a good amount of discussion on the meaning of "homicide" and discussion about how could a death be ruled a homicide but no indictment be forthcoming. Several people, myself among them, pointed out that homicide just means to intentionally take a life with no implication as to whether there was any wrong doing.

While that's true for the dictionary definition it is not true under NY Law. NY Penal Law 125:

S 125.00 Homicide defined.
Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn
child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four
weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first
degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent
homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree
Click to expand...


That means 2 things.

1. The ME made a determination that a crime was committed and that Garner's death was not a blameless accident.
2. Given that criminally negligent homicide falls under the homicide defintion in NY the DA should have presented it.

The only way Panteleo can walk without an indictment is because there's confusion as to who caused the death, not really likely given the video, or because the DA failed to charge criminally negligent homicide. There is no excuse for that, especially given the statutory definition of homicide.

In short the DA threw the case. I sorely hope the Staten Island voters make him unemployed next chance they get.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

gdgyva said:
not biased in any way are you there?

one of my buddies is a sergeant in the capitol police......

5'10" white.....185 lbs......clean cut.......short hair.......no tattoos

without his uniform you wouldnt know what he did.....maybe a cpa, teacher, etc

in some jurisdictions, cops have to maintain a very professional look

depends on what your sheriff, chief, mayor, and council decide.......they always decide those things
Click to expand...

My brother in law just retired from the NYPD after 27 years. He's now teaching science at a private high school. He looks exactly the same today as he did when he retired last year. Same height and weight as your buddy, short hair, clean shaven, no tattoos, no piercings, nothing. He looks like he's been a science teacher for his entire life.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
Somewhere back in the dim distant pages of this thread, and in others on the same topic, there was a good amount of discussion on the meaning of "homicide" and discussion about how could a death be ruled a homicide but no indictment be forthcoming. Several people, myself among them, pointed out that homicide just means to intentionally take a life with no implication as to whether there was any wrong doing.

While that's true for the dictionary definition it is not true under NY Law. NY Penal Law 125:




That means 2 things.

1. The ME made a determination that a crime was committed and that Garner's death was not a blameless accident.
2. Given that criminally negligent homicide falls under the homicide defintion in NY the DA should have presented it.

The only way Panteleo can walk without an indictment is because there's confusion as to who caused the death, not really likely given the video, or because the DA failed to charge criminally negligent homicide. There is no excuse for that, especially given the statutory definition of homicide.

In short the DA threw the case. I sorely hope the Staten Island voters make him unemployed next chance they get.
Click to expand...

You are lost. You are totally wrong on your descriptions. The ME cannot determine criminality. There are 5 categories of death in New York. That has nothing to do with level of criminality.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
You are lost. You are totally wrong on your descriptions. The ME cannot determine criminality. There are 5 categories of death in New York. That has nothing to do with level of criminality.
Click to expand...


That is the legal definition of homicide in the State of New York. Are you arguing that it isn't or that somehow it can be interpreted otherwise?

Like it or not under the laws of New York State the ME gets to make a determination as to whether a crime was committed or not.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
That is the legal definition of homicide in the State of New York. Are you arguing that it isn't or that somehow it can be interpreted otherwise?

Like it or not under the laws of New York State the ME gets to make a determination as to whether a crime was committed or not.
Click to expand...
A coroner description of homicide does NOT imply criminal action. You dont REALLY believe that, do you?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
A coroner description of homicide does NOT imply criminal action. You dont REALLY believe that, do you?
Click to expand...

It does as far the GJ is concerned.

His determination is not binding at trial but for purposes of a grand jury proceeding it is. In other words the trial jury can decide a crime wasn't committed, the grand jury can't. The only thing they get to decide is whether there's enough evidence to put the guy in front of them on trial for the crime that the ME has established exists and continues to exist until a trial jury says otherwise.

Given that and the video it is unfathomable how they failed to return an indictment.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
It does as far the GJ is concerned.

His determination is not binding at trial but for purposes of a grand jury proceeding it is. In other words the trial jury can decide a crime wasn't committed, the grand jury can't. The only thing they get to decide is whether there's enough evidence to put the guy in front of them on trial for the crime that the ME has established exists and continues to exist until a trial jury says otherwise.

Given that and the video it is unfathomable how they failed to return an indictment.
Click to expand...
No it doesnt...not even close.

The coroner does not pronounce a judgment in any way shape or form regarding crime or criminal intent.

Quick...let your little fingers access Google, then come back and explain how that isnt what you REALLY meant.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
No it doesnt...not even close.

The coroner does not pronounce a judgment in any way shape or form regarding crime or criminal intent.

Quick...let your little fingers access Google, then come back and explain how that isnt what you REALLY meant.
Click to expand...

How about you save me the time, trouble and confusion and point to evidence otherwise that is applicable to New York. I've already given you chapter and verse from NY Penal Law.

Remember I am talking about a grand jury proceeding only. Not a trial. A trial jury can decide the ME was wrong or that the homicide was justifiable. The GJ sole task is to decide whether the guy did what they said he did.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
How about you save me the time, trouble and confusion and point to evidence otherwise that is applicable to New York. I've already given you chapter and verse from NY Penal Law.

Remember I am talking about a grand jury proceeding only. Not a trial. A trial jury can decide the ME was wrong or that the homicide was justifiable. The GJ sole task is to decide whether the guy did what they said he did.
Click to expand...
Did you rush to Google yet? Did you find the 5 possible declarative cause of death options available to coroners in New York, none of which have anything to do with criminal or potential criminal declarations?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
Did you rush to Google yet? Did you find the 5 possible declarative cause of death options available to coroners in New York, none of which have anything to do with criminal or potential criminal declarations?
Click to expand...

Nope. They are irrelevant (and I know what they say in any event). What's relevant is NY Penal Law which very clearly states that the circumstances for criminality exist with any homicide.

I'll restate my point:

The Grand Jury doesn't get to decide whether a homicide is justifiable or not. The Grand Jury doesn't get to decide whether a crime was committed or not. That's for the trial court.

By calling it a homicide under NY law the circumstances for criminality exist. Once the GJ sees the word homicide on the death certificate the only question for the GJ is whether there is sufficient evidence that the accused did the act or not. If there's sufficient evidence that he did the act then they're supposed to indict.

The trial court is the place where they'd sort out whether it was justified or whether the ME got the facts wrong and it really was an accident or natural causes or suicide.

Now please rebut that and stop with the 5 causes of death because they are completely irrelevant at this point in the discussion. Legally a homicide implies a crime until a trial court says otherwise.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
Nope. They are irrelevant (and I know what they say in any event). What's relevant is NY Penal Law which very clearly states that the circumstances for criminality exist with any homicide.

I'll restate my point:

The Grand Jury doesn't get to decide whether a homicide is justifiable or not. The Grand Jury doesn't get to decide whether a crime was committed or not. That's for the trial court.

By calling it a homicide under NY law the circumstances for criminality exist. Once the GJ sees the word homicide on the death certificate the only question for the GJ is whether there is sufficient evidence that the accused did the act or not. If there's sufficient evidence that he did the act then they're supposed to indict.

The trial court is the place where they'd sort out whether it was justified or whether the ME got the facts wrong and it really was an accident or natural causes or suicide.

Now please rebut that and stop with the 5 causes of death because they are completely irrelevant at this point in the discussion. Legally a homicide implies a crime until a trial court says otherwise.
Click to expand...

You are lost. You are trying to apply your vast knowledge from what you watched on Law and Order to the word Homicide. It will never work. It wont work because you are wrong. Even staying at a Holiday Inn Express wont help you. Google it. Learn it. Understand it. The coroners category has zero to do with crime, criminality, intent, or if something should or shouldnt be referred to a grand jury.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
You are lost. You are trying to apply your vast knowledge from what you watched on Law and Order to the word Homicide. It will never work. It wont work because you are wrong. Even staying at a Holiday Inn Express wont help you. Google it. Learn it. Understand it. The coroners category has zero to do with crime, criminality, intent, or if something should or shouldnt be referred to a grand jury.
Click to expand...

Then kindly explain the meaning of NY Penal Law 125.00 which legally defines the word homicide for purpose of criminal law in New York State. Kindly explain how that is not the operative definition of the word for legal purposes in New York.

For you to rebut me you need to first and foremost prove my interpretation is incorrect. Then you'd need to describe a grand jury system that actually looks at defenses - which ours doesn't since, well the defense isn't there. Ours looks at what the prosecutors facts are and decides whether he has enough to warrant going forward.

The prosecutor decides whether something can be referred to a grand jury. If the coroner says "accident" nothing happens. If the coroner says homicide and prosecutor thinks he can prove and and prove criminality then he goes to the GJ. But what you refuse, utterly and completely refuse to understand is that the GJ isn't suppose to look at defenses.

And I don't watch law and order. Though I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last week.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
Then kindly explain the meaning of NY Penal Law 125.00 which legally defines the word homicide for purpose of criminal law in New York State. Kindly explain how that is not the operative definition of the word for legal purposes in New York.

For you to rebut me you need to first and foremost prove my interpretation is incorrect. Then you'd need to describe a grand jury system that actually looks at defenses - which ours doesn't since, well the defense isn't there. Ours looks at what the prosecutors facts are and decides whether he has enough to warrant going forward.

The prosecutor decides whether something can be referred to a grand jury. If the coroner says "accident" nothing happens. If the coroner says homicide and prosecutor thinks he can prove and and prove criminality then he goes to the GJ. But what you refuse, utterly and completely refuse to understand is that the GJ isn't suppose to look at defenses.

And I don't watch law and order. Though I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last week.
Click to expand...
I am giving you LOTS of opportunities to dig your own hole. I have even given you the opportunity to NOT. You REALLY want to cling to your notion that a coroner use of the word 'homicide' is declarative of criminal intent IE the penal code?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

VanceMack said:
I am giving you LOTS of opportunities to dig your own hole. I have even given you the opportunity to NOT. You REALLY want to cling to your notion that a coroner use of the word 'homicide' is declarative of criminal intent IE the penal code?
Click to expand...

As I've said repeatedly intent isn't a question the GJ looks at. The statute essentially takes intent off the table.

Have you read the statute? Can you offer reasonable alternative interpretation?
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

j-mac said:
Prove intent.
Click to expand...

Violation of established police procedure would seem sufficient "intent" for me to vote to take the case to trial. As to whether the GJ knew of that (perhaps they were "accidentally" not made aware of it) is another question. The problem appears to be the close working relationship of prosecutors (the only ones presenting any evidence to the GJ) and police officers - they are both dependent upon cooperation with each other and are both paid by the same boss.

If a police officer can be held personally criminally responsible for their on the job actions then it stands to reason that a prosecutor could be as well. It should be grounds to charge the prosecutor with criminal misconduct (accessory after the fact?) if they withheld proper police procedure violations from the GJ. Of course, the same could be said of each of the fellow officers, on the scene or even viewing the video later, that made no effort to stop the use of a chokehold or to even ensure that the prosecutor was made aware of it.

It is said that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich yet very few blue ham sandwiches ever get indicted. Perhaps it is time to have a real review of why so many "questionable" police actions are never even questioned by those that can bring ANYONE to trial by simply skipping the GJ all together as in the Zimmerman case.

The most questionable action in this case is the moronic idea that placing a 200% tax on state/local cigarettes would not be apt to "create crime" by offering anyone a means of more than doubling their money by simply avoiding it. Wasn't the original tea party all about violent objection to ridiculous taxation? ;)
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

j-mac said:
Well that's just great ain't it...keep on going after cops, and before long there won't be anyone stupid enough to be one.
Click to expand...

More than likely there would just be far fewer stupid ones. ;)
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

ttwtt78640 said:
More than likely there would just be far fewer stupid ones. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, neither one of us has a crystal ball, but I can assure you that tying cops hands in dealing with suspects is going to not only result in fewer qualified candidates becoming cops, but could lead to more officer deaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom