No Indictment In New York

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Homicide is the taking of the life of another person by a person. It can be......

.. me shooting an intruder breaking into my home in the middle of the night with a shotgun to kill me ..... or his bare hands to kill me ...... or to steal my shit......who dies from the multiple holes in his body.

Does it matter what color he is? Fuck no.
Does it matter if he is a "teenager"? Fuck no.

It's time for some folks to wake up and smell the coffee.

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by boardman

Maybe...maybe not.
Was it an accident that could reasonably be considered unavoidable? No you didn't kill him. You were involved in an accident that contributed to his death.
Were you just not paying attention? involuntary manslaughter?
Were you distracted by something of your own choosing? voluntary manslaughter?
Were you upset about something and driving aggressively because of it. Not sure where this would fall. Manslaughter perhaps?
Were you upset at the guy you hit and trying to prove something even if it was a tap? Murder?
Did you leave the house that morning with the intention of hitting someone but tried to avoid it at the last minute only tapping him? Premeditation?

FTR I think the cops were too aggressive too quickly...They intended to display a show of force. It went too far.
Beyond that I think it's a stupid fucking law.

what law is stupid?

It wasnt murder, it was some form of Manslaughter,
Jon stwart did a great bit about it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6267214.html

[TheDaliLama]

Lesson....

Don't get in the way of a Democrat when he's trying to collect taxes.

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

I believe the cop that applied the choke hold should be punished (suspended without pay) due to the fact that he broke the dept rules by using the choke hold. . . having said that, he likely did not know of the dudes health issues and that he would die so the grand jury probably made the right decision, I emphasize "probably" because I didn't see all the evidence they saw.

the cops now say they DID NOT APPLY A CHOKE HOLD

quick guys big/fat man, we need MOAR cops!!

video proves otherwise

BUT
A Grand Jury Did Indict One Person Involved In Eric Garner's Killing -- The Man Who Filmed It



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6264746.html

[Mr MojoRisin]

Here, maybe this video can explain further why Eric Garner died in his confrontation with police.

Jim


http://youtu.be/yhB9gM0kP68

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Here, maybe this video can explain further why Eric Garner died in his confrontation with police.

Jim

Hopefully the autopsy report will be released and the detail of the examination*

*There should be an audio recorded narrative, and a video/photos (although the images will probably not be released). A good examiner will be able to tell the cause of death ... asphyxiation vs. clot/aneurysm.... the latter seems most likely based on reports of Garner talking and the officer releasing his hold. The video is excellent. Thank you.

[JD Barleycorn]

The autopsy says that he did not die because of a "chokehold" but the result of poor health and the vigorous encounter with the NYPD. I suppose the same thing could have happened if he were fighting off four or five little gangbangers.

Still, the police were carrying out orders to be aggressive with people evading tax laws and riding their bicycles on the sidewalk.

[bigcockpussylicker]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Hopefully the autopsy report will be released and the detail of the examination*

*There should be an audio recorded narrative, and a video/photos (although the images will probably not be released). A good examiner will be able to tell the cause of death ... asphyxiation vs. clot/aneurysm.... the latter seems most likely based on reports of Garner talking and the officer releasing his hold. The video is excellent. Thank you.

why did the cops sit on his head, etc when he was on the ground? why did they force him to the ground?
I assume the cops were in fear of their donuts being eaten?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

why did the cops sit on his head, etc when he was on the ground? why did they force him to the ground?
I assume the cops were in fear of their donuts being eaten?

Perhaps had they eaten more donuts they would have been nearer Garner's size and Garner would have respected them more and followed their orders to "turn around and put your hands behind your back"!!!

Why did they sit on his head ... I don't know. Seemed too hard a seat to me.

They were forcing him to the ground so they could control his body while they were handcuffing him ... I suspect they were gong to have to double cuff him.

In the one picture posted do you see his right hand with curled fingers?

Looks like a grizzly pissed off.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

what law is stupid?

It wasnt murder, it was some form of Manslaughter,
Jon stwart did a great bit about it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6267214.html

The law making it illegal to sell loose cigs is stupid. It's just another power and money grab by out of control politicians. They bill it as a law to prevent minors from smoking. There are already laws that are designed to do that. Enforce those. Is there something inherently wrong with me walking up to a guy on the street and giving him a quarter for a smoke? No. But because we won't enforce the laws we have we have to enact ones that go further in stepping on our freedom.


Normally what Jon Stewart does ARE bits so I don't give them much attention.
That's probably the most sincere commentary I've seen from Stewart. Granted, I don't watch him a lot.

[LexusLover]

S 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with
criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.
Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony.

S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,
unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three
of section 125.05; or
3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.
Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

S 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
2. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the
death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do
not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme
emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of
section 125.25. The fact that homicide was committed under the influence
of extreme emotional disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance
reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree and need not be
proved in any prosecution initiated under this subdivision; or
3. He commits upon a female pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks
an abortional act which causes her death, unless such abortional act is
justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05; or
4. Being eighteen years old or more and with intent to cause physical
injury to a person less than eleven years old, the defendant recklessly
engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury
to such person and thereby causes the death of such person.
Manslaughter in the first degree is a class B felony.

NY Penal 15.05
The following definitions are applicable to this chapter: 1. "Intentionally." A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such conduct. 2. "Knowingly." A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. 3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto. 4. "Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. -

[CuteOldGuy]

LL, you ignorant slut. I never said the coroner's report should result in a conviction. I said it should result in an indictment where there would be a trial, and the evidence could be reviewed and cross examined. Quit lying about what I post.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LL, you ignorant slut. I never said the coroner's report should result in a conviction. I said it should result in an indictment where there would be a trial, and the evidence could be reviewed and cross examined. Quit lying about what I post.

You must be WTF and JDB's offspring ...

.. I just went back and looked at my response to your post about the REPORT.

I didn't see where I posted:

YOU "SAID": ...."the coroner's report should result in a conviction."

Of course, I could always have missed something .... when it be too much of an inconvenience for you to give me a quote and post # where I claimed you 'SAID":"the coroner's report should result in a conviction."

If it is too much trouble or inconvenient, or you can't find it .... then ...

Go Fuck Yourself.....Mr. Supervisor?

Because I believe in my response to what you "SAID" I posted: #29:

Originally Posted by LexusLover:

"The "coroner" has two choices (may be 3):
1. suicide
2. homicide
3. unknown (maybe the third).
4. "accidental" perhaps the 4th choice.

Just because it was #2, because it wasn't #1, doesn't make it a crime. The coroner is saying the death was the result of another person. FYI: There have been "coroner" or "medical examiner" reports that were "booked" as accidents and/or suicides and/or unknown that have been later changed and/or refuted by evidence the examiner did not have for various reasons.

I remember the agriculture department investigator YEARS ago who was shot in the Houston area and ruled a suicide by the medical examiner's office. He had two bullet holes in his back from a rifle that was recovered.

A recent example was the police officer who was charged with the death of his former wife from years ago that had been determined to be "accidental" at the time. Current events: Michael Brown. There were three of them.

The point is the "coroner's' opinion should not be the determination either way, and is only one piece of the puzzle. They can be wrong, and they don't determine "intent" of the actor or accused, and more importantly they don't identify the actor or accused.

It is "interesting" the take on grand juries generally with the old saying a grand jury will indict a "ham sandwich" and then when one doesn't all hell breaks loose. Juries are people....for the most part average, law abiding citizens, who were selected randomly for the same pool of people from which the trial jury would be selected.

Supervisors ought to have "superior" reading skills to comprehend policies and other requirements of procedures relative to their assigned supervising task. Also, Supervisors ought to have the personal skills to withhold judgment until they have had an opportunity to discuss and review the matter with the subordinate or OTHER PERSON with whom they are dealing to assure that they have comprehended the circumstance accurately, so they can make an appropriate response and not fly off the handle on some half-cocked crazy name-calling rant.

Having reviewed what i wrote in the context of mention GRAND JURIES several times ... to assure myself that i did not mention trial (in fact I mentioned the the "people .... selected randomly for (sic) the same pool of people from which the trial jury would be selected" WHICH DISTINGUISHES TO WHAT I WAS REFERENCING ........ THE FUCKING GRAND JURY.

cog .. you are a loose canon, or are you "PD" ... Posting Drunk.

Don't apologize ... just move on.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

The law making it illegal to sell loose cigs is stupid.

I don't know the actual motivation behind the loose cig law, other than what has been posted.

The background may well involve some unmentionable subjects for this board. There are a couple of issues that may be relevant in the effort .... beside taxes.

1. No accountability for underage sales.
2. No accountability as to contamination.
3. No accountability as to the actual substance contained in them.

Recent events surrounding "synthetics" being sold at convenience stores with no age requirement had all the components involved, which resulted in amendments to prohibited lists in regulations and statutes to prevent the uncontrolled sale of some serious shit with no content regulation.

Do the police have a "right" to investigate what Garner was selling on the street, to pat him down (search) for "contraband," and question him about his presence there? Yes. The United States Supreme Court has said so.

If he resists the pat down (search) while the police contact is ongoing that is an offense (an "arrestable" offense).... and while they are in the process of that "contact" if they are concerned about their personal safety they have a right to secure him (handcuff him) to protect themselves while they conduct their "investigation." The United States Supreme Court has said so. Throughout the decisions of The United States Supreme Court are statements of "officer safety."

I don't think this law equates with the Big Drink Prohibition.

[Guest022016]

I have avoided politics for a couple years now bc it literally makes me ill to think of our failing system, however, I have regained some interest mainly cause my brain needs stimulation and my vagina needs a break

I really want to go off on a tangent about so many things but I keep deleting. I don't think eccie is ready for me to unleash my huge brain.

The only thing I can add to this I dont believe anyone has mentioned the choke hold was banned from being used as a maneuver in NY in 1993. The entire situation was recorded but supreme court ruled there wasn't enough evidence. I am very concerned w the overuse of deadly force lately and even more concerned that people are agreeing that it's ok. I guess I don't understand why we even have a judicial system at this point bc matters are taken care of by the police officers long before that process even starts and death should just be the standard sentence for all. This man died over selling a loose cigarette. That does not equal death or to be put in a maneuver which has been banned 20 yrs ago due to the high death rate when applying it.