Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > The Newsroom > Political Talk
Facebook

Notices

Political Talk Political News


Search For Similiar Threads Using Key Words & Phrases
abuse, eric garner, police, rest in peace, violence

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #411  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:01 PM
n david n david is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasha View Post
Are you suggesting that the prosecutor was on the side of the defendant?
I'm only suggesting that the incredibly low "true bill" rates for cops is suspect. Prosecutors work daily with the police. They are on the same side of the law, and thus enjoy some benefits which come with it, including increased prosecutorial discretion.

Sol Wachtler, a NY State Judge, once claimed Grand Juries were so pliable that a Prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

A Federal Judge from Chicago, William J. Campbell said, “Today, 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."

For example, *between 10/2009 and 9/2010, over 162,350 were prosecuted and resulted in true bills from the Grand Jury. Only 11 resulted in the Grand Jury not returning with an indictment.

That's a 99% true bill rate.

However, when it comes to LEO's being prosecuted, the true bill rate plummets.

Quote:
^^In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment.
That's only .01% returning an indictment against a cop. Of cases sent to the Grand Jury where the officer was at least suspected to have committed a crime, 99% walked free. That's the complete opposite of the civilian rate.

I don't know that this Prosecutor was biased towards the cop. Typically defendants do not testify before a Grand Jury. It's very rare when they do. The reasons I've found are: they're not allowed legal representation, they are questioned only by the Prosecutor and there is no Judge to handle objections. It's a dangerous choice for the defendant to make.

Both the officer in Ferguson and the officer in NY testified before the Grand Jury. We have the transcripts and all evidence of the Ferguson case, but the transcripts of the NY case have been kept under seal. The Prosecutor allowed a summary of evidence and number of witnesses to be released, but that was all which was allowed.

I wish there was a way to find out how many cops have testified to a Grand Jury compared to civilians and in those cases, how many GJ's came back with a true bill.

*Source Link

^^Source Link
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:06 PM
Sasha Sasha is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 958
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman View Post
Now that is what I call an idiotic post, but your welcome to delusional opinions.
You said his daughter cried during the interview about his death. How many times did she cry when he was arrested for no less than 30 times while committing crimes? How many times did she cry and beg her daddy to stay home instead of going out to do illegal activities?

I'm sorry she is crying because he is gone, but she will never continue crying because her daddy is a criminal to someday be shot by another criminal who may have also killed her and the rest of the family. Call me heartless, but again, I think she's better off. He shouldn't have been committing a crime and he shouldn't have been resisting arrest.
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:12 PM
n david n david is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasha View Post
What is not stated above is how vocal cords work. Air must pass through them in order to speak. Yes, you can still have air in the lungs even after feeling that you have completely expelled all air, but to speak, he had to be breathing. He didn't have that much air left. Try jogging for five minutes, expell all air from your lungs, start jogging again without inhaling and tell me how many times you can say 'I can't breathe' until you just pass out.

If your windpipe is crushed, I'm thinking one can't speak, or speak clearly enough to be heard. Talking while being hung or strangled may work in the movies, but one cannot speak if their windpipe is compromised.

Ok, I get that just because someone can breathe doesn't mean they are ok. People in respiratory failure are breathing, but they won't be for long if action isn't taken, like intubation.

I'm more upset that the EMTs who were on the scene did nothing to help him. I have yet to hear why that is and why they were not charged.
It could be Garner was experiencing an asthma attack, which would have allowed him to still speak. I'd insert a personal note here, but the last time I did so, I was basically called a liar so I won't.

I would imagine any civil suit from Garner's family will include the EMTs for their lack of assistance, along with the rest of the officers at the scene.
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:19 PM
n david n david is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17,803
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

According to the article at the link below, the Prosecutor and even Pantaleo were surprised the Grand Jury didn't return a true bill. The Prosecutor was said to believe criminal negligence best fit the charge. The blame for the lack of a true bill was directed at the ME who labled the death as due to chokehold, which required evidence of a chokehold, which there were none. It could be this was the reason the GJ was unable to return a true bill.

Source Link
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:21 PM
Sasha Sasha is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 958
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman View Post
Based upon your EXPERT opinion of course, you have absolutely no evidence that Eric Garner didn't care about his family. There are also people who do not care about there own families that have never stood inside of a prison. What a moronic statement for you to make.
Maybe your expertise on criminals tells you how caring they are about their families. So tell me, why so many baby mommas they never support, and why a life of crime instead of getting a job and an education? Garner wasn't someone taking care of his family, me and you were. They were on welfare with him supplementing the income we were supplying with criminal actions.

Keep defending criminals all you want. I'd rather teach people who to take responsibility for their own actions so they will keep from being criminals.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:23 PM
BrotherEastman's Avatar
BrotherEastman BrotherEastman is offline
uncharismatic conservative maverick


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,356
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasha View Post
You said his daughter cried during the interview about his death. How many times did she cry when he was arrested for no less than 30 times while committing crimes? How many times did she cry and beg her daddy to stay home instead of going out to do illegal activities?

I'm sorry she is crying because he is gone, but she will never continue crying because her daddy is a criminal to someday be shot by another criminal who may have also killed her and the rest of the family. Call me heartless, but again, I think she's better off. He shouldn't have been committing a crime and he shouldn't have been resisting arrest.
That about sums it up for you doesn't it? And show me a link where there was actual evidence of Eric committing a crime. Alleged is a word I'm afraid you do not know the meaning of.
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:25 PM
BrotherEastman's Avatar
BrotherEastman BrotherEastman is offline
uncharismatic conservative maverick


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,356
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasha View Post
Maybe your expertise on criminals tells you how caring they are about their families. So tell me, why so many baby mommas they never support, and why a life of crime instead of getting a job and an education? Garner wasn't someone taking care of his family, me and you were. They were on welfare with him supplementing the income we were supplying with criminal actions.

Keep defending criminals all you want. I'd rather teach people who to take responsibility for their own actions so they will keep from being criminals.
Someone said he was on disability, isn't that a way of supporting ones family? BTW, I don't make claims that use expertise in such manner, but you obviously do.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:36 PM
Sasha Sasha is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 958
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
I'm only suggesting that the incredibly low "true bill" rates for cops is suspect. Prosecutors work daily with the police. They are on the same side of the law, and thus enjoy some benefits which come with it, including increased prosecutorial discretion.

Sol Wachtler, a NY State Judge, once claimed Grand Juries were so pliable that a Prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

A Federal Judge from Chicago, William J. Campbell said, “Today, 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."

For example, *between 10/2009 and 9/2010, over 162,350 were prosecuted and resulted in true bills from the Grand Jury. Only 11 resulted in the Grand Jury not returning with an indictment.

That's a 99% true bill rate.

However, when it comes to LEO's being prosecuted, the true bill rate plummets.



That's only .01% returning an indictment against a cop. Of cases sent to the Grand Jury where the officer was at least suspected to have committed a crime, 99% walked free. That's the complete opposite of the civilian rate.

I don't know that this Prosecutor was biased towards the cop. Typically defendants do not testify before a Grand Jury. It's very rare when they do. The reasons I've found are: they're not allowed legal representation, they are questioned only by the Prosecutor and there is no Judge to handle objections. It's a dangerous choice for the defendant to make.

Both the officer in Ferguson and the officer in NY testified before the Grand Jury. We have the transcripts and all evidence of the Ferguson case, but the transcripts of the NY case have been kept under seal. The Prosecutor allowed a summary of evidence and number of witnesses to be released, but that was all which was allowed.

I wish there was a way to find out how many cops have testified to a Grand Jury compared to civilians and in those cases, how many GJ's came back with a true bill.

*Source Link

^^Source Link
I do believe that often, people aren't indicted on charges they probably should be. However, you are comparing the actions of an officer with those of civilians. I don't think that's something that can be compared. I say that because officers are required as part of their job to do things that we as civilians cannot do. We don't have the authority of the law on our side as they do. Now, this doesn't mean that they all act within the confines of the law. I do believe many take their authority and use it as a reason to harass, threaten, and such like in order to 'be the boss'.

That being said, I think it makes it harder to indict someone of using their authority inappropriately when it's part of their job compared to someone who is just an average joe that might do the same thing.

Compare a doctor to myself. A doctor can prescribe a medication that may kill his patient. He can be brought up before the GJ to indict him on negligence because the medication he prescribed was something the patient was horribly allergic to and he died. Turns out, the doctor didn't know he was allergic and no action is taken.

I, on the other hand, obtain a prescription pad and write a prescription for my child, who subsequently dies due to an allergy. I am brought up on charges, found guilty, and sentenced to 50 years.

Now, if you compare the actual happenstance, I did the same thing the doctor did. He wrote a prescription, so did I. His patient died from an allergy, so did mine. He was never charged, I'm serving 50 years.

The difference? The doctor, as part of his job as a licensed professional, can legally do something I cannot do. You can argue that the doctor did indeed know about the allergy and let's say you prove it, you might be able to prove negligence, but he won't serve 50 years like I am.

I think it's very difficult to prosecute someone for something they are legally allowed to do, even when someone dies. This is why most malpractice suits literally don't make it to court. I promise you that the people who file suits against the cops find themselves in the same situation. There isn't an attorney in the world who will take their case because it's a no-win situation unless you have absolute die-hard evidence. It's just not as easy as it is for filing those same charges against Joe Schmoe.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:39 PM
Sasha Sasha is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 958
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by n david View Post
It could be Garner was experiencing an asthma attack, which would have allowed him to still speak. I'd insert a personal note here, but the last time I did so, I was basically called a liar so I won't.

I would imagine any civil suit from Garner's family will include the EMTs for their lack of assistance, along with the rest of the officers at the scene.
That last statement I believe should be done, especially the EMTs. The problem with the cops will be that, if they can show he was resisting arrest and the officers did what they had to be done, considering Garner's size, they might not get anywhere. However, it was the job of the EMTs to offer assistance, and since they did not, I think they are more at fault here.
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 12-17-2014, 12:43 PM
Sasha Sasha is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 958
Re: Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indi

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman View Post
That about sums it up for you doesn't it? And show me a link where there was actual evidence of Eric committing a crime. Alleged is a word I'm afraid you do not know the meaning of.
If you think the NYPD were there to arrest him for suspicion of selling loosies, you must think NYC is in the sticks and never has crime. LOL!

It has already been stated in this thread that he was seen by the cops selling. That's why they stopped and arrested him.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
D-Day for Michael Brown Grand Jury n david Political Talk 55 12-09-2014 07:09 PM
Testimony From Grand Jury Praxeas Fellowship Hall 11 11-25-2014 12:25 PM
Jury Deliberations tstew Fellowship Hall 29 04-09-2012 07:01 PM
Jury Duty BrotherEastman Fellowship Hall 8 02-13-2012 04:58 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.