I guess it is OPEN SEASON to kill black men in America...no one seems to care.

Not blind or biased at all they had no reason to arrest this man he was simply minding his own business they did see him selling anything.And if you check your post your biased way on thinking has been wrong quite a lot.

 

Yep. It doesn't look like they had any evidence/probable cause to detain him at the time either. Warrior bro cop went UFC and killed someone and goes unpunished. Unfreakingbelievable.

 

Imo yes i think he would have if he had been white even criminal should be treated with respect if they had done nothing wrong and wasn't acting strange when approched in the Graner case there was no reason to be messing with that dude.

 

Probably not considered the most "libtard" legal commentator...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/12/03/eric-garner-case-grievous-wrong-not-to-indict/?intcmp=ob_homepage_opinion&intcmp=obnetwork

 

A video... Lol... I've seen this type of stuff many of times 1st hand. And I've said repeatedly that many Mexican men get treated the same way as black men... I understand you were quick to tell me you passed the bar _ but for all you know I could have spent a decade working for immigration and customs.

I've never said what color I am... For all you know I could be biracial (with a white mother and black father) so skin color could be irrelevant to me. I'm just speaking on what I have seen. Just like you can speak on what you have seen (or should I say what you have only seen in videos).

 

It's unclear, because police departments have gone to extraordinarily lengths not to disclose information about death-by-police, so there is no comprehensive research data on this.

That said, the data we do have shows that black people are killed at a much higher rate than white people by police - even accounting for the fact that they commit crimes and are arrested at a higher rate.

Lots of statistical data here:

http://www.propublica.org/article/d...utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter

 

You ask if I know the laws, regulations, and procedures.....I guess you completely missed where I was posting the EXACT laws on the books along with the definitions of relevant terminology earlier? If there isn't evidence that a crime took place, then you don't take a case to trial and that's what the grand jury found to be the case. Since the officers actions, while against police regulations, were legally justifiable under NY penal code section 35.30, thus there was no crime committed. No crime, no trial.

Read up on that and get back to me when you are less ignorant on the topic.

First of all, you don't know that. The medical examiner listed several contributing factors to the man's death, the "choke hold" was merely one of them. The officers holding him down while cuffing him could have been enough to kill the man since he was in such poor health and was so incredibly obese.

Secondly, I've brought up the fact that choke holds are against NYPD policy numerous times, and have said that since he broke that protocol he should be fired for it......That said, the law on the books doesn't talk about NYPD policy, it talks about what the officer reasonably thinks is necessary to complete the arrest. The officer also claims that he was trying to do a headlock and not a choke hold....probably a lie, but irrelevant because he was using the force he deemed necessary to arrest the much bigger man who was resisting and it's hard to argue with that.

The man's death could have been avoided if he simply obeyed the law and allowed the officers to arrest him, instead, he chose to break the law and unfortunately it led to his death.

That has NOTHING at all in common with a DUI in that driving under the influence is never legally justifiable and the officer's actions were legally justifiable.

 

Yes, it's a fairly inconsequential crime, but you have to decouple that from his resisting arrest. At the point he resists arrest, now you're dealing with a totally different situation.

 

Thank you for the link. I read it and could not find anything there to support the bolded part in your quote. Maybe I missed it, could you point me to it? Thanks.

 

I would agree with this assessment, and I don't think one can completely "decouple" the question of whether someone resists arrest from the alleged reason for the arrest. If I have done absolutely nothing wrong, I am more likely to be furious about being arrested than if I have just shoplifted or whatever and know exactly what I am being arrested for. If you have done nothing wrong and suddenly someone wants to arrest you, in a threatening manner, too, then yeah, you are probably going to voice your displeasure. And if that then escalates, you were not the one who "started it".

 

Garner was arrested for violating his bail, having been arrested multiple times previously for selling untaxed cigarettes. If it was a first time offense, or if he wasn't already on bail, a citation would suffice but Garner never followed the law that he broke multiple times. I don't have proof but I have to trust the police did their investigation.

From what I see in the video, Garner had pleaded his case with the officers for a while. The problem is that police officers are not the judge/jury, they are merely enforcing laws and are required to arrest a multiple offender. I think he is resisting arrest and the officers gave him more than a fair amount of time to comply. Garner wiggled and turned his back from officers when they initially tried to cuff him, which led to the chokehold.

I think it's silly for the NYPD to claim it wasn't a chokehold. It clearly was. It also violated NYPD policy. In my opinion, it was excessive and done too preemptively when other options could have been explored first. Garner wasn't violent, nor had a history of being a violent criminal, so I think the cops should have wrestled him into cuffs.

I still stand by my original feelings in this thread. There's enough for an indictment. I think a good lawyer could get him out of murder or manslaughter charges, but maybe not excessive force or other lesser charges. The fact that there was no indictment is a problem in the system. I can't claim racism yet. I see no hint of it in the arrest, and I can't see what happened in the grand jury. For there to be no indictment is very shocking, and that's a problem with the process.

 

Sure - black people are killed at a rate 21 times that of white people. While we all agree that black people commit crimes at a higher rate than white people, no one would claim its at a rate of 21x. For example, incarceration rates for black people are about 6x that of white people - and that's with knowing that black people are put in jail more often for the same crimes as white people. Whether it's arrest rates or conviction rates or whatever else, and regardless of whether its justified or legitimate or whatever, stats generally show them all to be 2-8x rates for black people vs white people. Nowhere close to 21x.

 

You have repeated this often, and while I am not lawyer, I don't believe this is correct. I believe that if there are multiple causes to someone's death, and you are responsible for one of them, then you are responsible for their death.

For example, if I shoot someone, and in the process they have a heart attack, I believe I would be tried for (and likely convicted of) murder. Or, if I shot someone who was driving a car, and in the process they truck a tree and died in the car crash, I believe I would be tried for (and again, likely convicted of) murder.

In the example above, you even spell it out... he was in poor health, and the chokehold could have caused an asthma attack. Could have caused a heart attack. Just as being shot could have. Probably why the coroner included the chokehold as one of the causes of death... and why it was deemed a homicide.

Hopefully someone with knowledge of the law can respond to this.

 

That's probably right, but what throws a wrench in an indictment is that under NY law, the officer's actions were legally justifiable. That's what separates it from your example. Legally justifiable actions that lead to an accidental death are treated a lot different than unjustifiable actions that lead to an accidental death. I was only bringing up the guy's health to point out the "fluke" nature of his death

 

This is only true, if at all, for the age range of 15-19 in the time period ProPublica looked at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Prison_data

So black people commit 8 x more homicides than white people (relatively to how many of them are there).

In 2012 (latest data available from the link below), 123 African-Americans were shot dead by police. 326 white people were shot dead by police in 2012.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

There are 223 million white people in the USA and 39 million black people, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States .

So there are roughly 5-6 x more white people than black people. Yet, "only" roughly 3 times more white people get killed by police. This does not support the 21 x higher risk you thought the ProPublica article was suggesting for all black people. It seems like the risk is "only" about 2 x higher. If you then consider that black people commit 8 times more homicides, a 2 x higher risk does not seem to support your implicit claim that black people are targeted to be killed by the police. Actually, on the contrary.

More on the ProPublica stats vs. other stats:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/02/politics/kristoff-oreilly-police-shooting-numbers-fact-check/

 

LOL I'm so glad I popped back into the D&D today to deal with this horrible argument.

"Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue."

Read that section from the law you are referring to. Are you telling me with a straight face that the police officer acted according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality? Even if you're twisted and morally bankrupt and somehow think the officer's actions were reasonable, is that an ordinary standard? Should we have a FACT-FINDING process and leave it to determine the answer to this question? Hmmm....it seems that such a process exists in our judicial system....

Saying he's not guilty is wrong, but I'm willing to accept that as a reasonable disagreement. Saying that it shouldn't have gone to trial is a legally indefensible position.

"No crime, no trial" is NOT how the indictment process works.

You lose.

 

And I don't think that is correct either. I don't think any NY law would allow a police officer to pull out an illegal gun from his boot to subdue a suspect. I don't think it would allow that officer to gouge out the suspects eyes to subdue a suspect.

Again, someone with legal knowledge could contribute here. I know Andrew Napolitano has spoken out on this and believes that the case should have gone to trial.

Furthermore, the video clearly shows that any excessive force was not necessary with this suspect.

And lastly in this case... it isn't the role of the grand jury to decide on the police officer's guilt or innocence... rather, whether the evidence in this case warranted a trial. The courts could decide whether the chokehold was justified in subduing the suspect. Clearly the video doesn't support that conclusion...

 

And how many of those white people who were shot were unarmed, were shot with their hands up, or shot in the back, or shot in a Wal-Mart for buying a toy gun like John Crawford...?

Great job just throwing numbers around though.

 

I don't know.

The data does not seem to support your prejudice.

 

How many were black?