A state in which the public should comply with the police regardless of whether they are operating within the law, through fear of force, violence and death?

A state in which the police and prosecutors are so closely aligned that when the police are involved in an unlawful killing, the DA can make a soft case and get them off?

A state where the Mayor of NYC is suggested will rue criticising the police for over-use of force?

A state where the police union wields power over politicians and defends the indefensible?

A state where police forces are buying up military equipment and using it on civilian protestors?

Actually, I was chilled by bbauska's brief words as an aspiration or advice. But now you challenge the idea as a description of the current state, and suggest that is what I meant and that it is somehow ridiculous, I examine the premise and I am not so sure.

After all, isn't the "War on Drugs" really a massive permanent boost to the powers and size of law enforcement?

fate

you know nothing about what the GJ heard and yet you pretend to know they should have done something other than what they did.

The fact that no one hears what the GJ heard is an indictment of the system. A system that is under the control of the prosecuting attorney who may present what ever he wants,
You don't even know if they saw the video that everyone else has seen...

For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done.

Blacks aren't seeing much of the process are they? So they are justified in their suspicions.

fate

Think, strain your brain, for a moment: who drives taxis in NYC? Whites? From what I can find on the 'net, it looks like it's mostly immigrants who drive taxis. So .

so this should interest you. (You don't have to be white to be racist)

Almost No More White NYC Cab Drivers, but Blacks Still Can't Catch a Ride?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-laro ... 16602.html

danivon

After all, isn't the "War on Drugs" really a massive permanent boost to the powers and size of law enforcement

An even better example of the police state is the stop and seize laws, Black Asphalt Highway Interdiction and the use of assets seized by police departments for whatever they want..

Agencies with police known to be participating in the Black Asphalt intelligence network have seen a 32 percent jump in seizures beginning in 2005, three times the rate of other police departments. Desert Snow-trained officers reported more than $427 million in cash seizures during highway stops in just one five-year period, according to company officials. More than 25,000 police have belonged to Black Asphalt, company officials sai

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... and-seize/

Danivon,
I do not understand your point of being chilled by my short comments. They are after all just a repeat of what Geojanes said. Of course I said that is the best way to remain alive.

If a police officer violates policy... Charge/convict/punish.
If a police office violates law... Charge/convict/punish
If a criminal violates law... Charge/convict/punish
If a person resists/does not comply... Charge/convict/punish

An officer is trained to exert enough force to compel compliance. The best way to reduce the force exerted is to (wait for it...)

COMPLY!!!!!! (ding, ding, ding!!!! Winner winner, chicken dinner!!!)

If a police officer does not follow the law, the public does not have the right to not obey an officer. Take it up with a judge. Resisting and not following commands does not do anything but escalate.

If it is "chilling" to tell a person to follow the law and not resist arrest, then we have zero agreement. I feel the public needs to respect authority and take issues up with supervisors.

Would Mr. Garner be dead if he followed commands?
Would Ferguson have happened if Michael Brown would have gotten off the street when told?

danivon wrote:A state in which the public should comply with the police regardless of whether they are operating within the law, through fear of force, violence and death?

Fallacy. Please DEMONSTRATE NYPD violated the law in telling Mr. Garner he was being arrested.

If you can't do that, the rest of your rant is toilet paper.

rickyp wrote:fate

you know nothing about what the GJ heard and yet you pretend to know they should have done something other than what they did.

The fact that no one hears what the GJ heard is an indictment of the system. A system that is under the control of the prosecuting attorney who may present what ever he wants,

If you don't like the system, stay in Canada. They care so much about civil liberties there, the police may search your phone pursuant to an arrest. #noprivacy

The Federal government can charge the officers if they believe the system failed. You have no evidence of wrongdoing, but you just "know" it's wrong. Welcome to the lynch mob!

You don't even know if they saw the video that everyone else has seen...

They're not sequestered, so why would they not have seen it?

For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done.

Rubbish. This isn't some secret cabal. It's a "grand jury." I believe it was 20+ regular folks.

Blacks aren't seeing much of the process are they? So they are justified in their suspicions.

A grand jury found there was not "probable cause" to charge the officers. Some blacks were going to be upset unless the officers were burned alive. That's because they get their news from Al Sharpton.

fate

Think, strain your brain, for a moment: who drives taxis in NYC? Whites? From what I can find on the 'net, it looks like it's mostly immigrants who drive taxis. So .

so this should interest you. (You don't have to be white to be racist)

Almost No More White NYC Cab Drivers, but Blacks Still Can't Catch a Ride?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-laro ... 16602.html

It's so true! Blacks can be racists too!

But, sadly for you, my point stands. I was responding to your asinine comment:

Picking at the details of any particular incident and looking for excuses ignores the over whelming feeling by people of color that their dealing with police are inevitably different then a white persons. Hell, trying to hail a cab is a different experience..

You were comparing the NYPD to the taxi cab drivers. When I pointed out cabs aren't driven by whites, you said "You don't have to be white to be racist." Here's the problem: you are saying that cab drivers (non-whites) are racists and that NYPD officers are racists. Everyone is a racist, according to you. Everyone hates black people and discriminates against them, according to you. I just don't think that's accurate or can be supported by any study. "The whole world is out to get black people" is a world view--but, it is one that is neither true nor helpful.

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I do not understand your point of being chilled by my short comments. They are after all just a repeat of what Geojanes said. Of course I said that is the best way to remain alive.

If a police officer violates policy... Charge/convict/punish.
If a police office violates law... Charge/convict/punish
If a criminal violates law... Charge/convict/punish
If a person resists/does not comply... Charge/convict/punish

An officer is trained to exert enough force to compel compliance. The best way to reduce the force exerted is to (wait for it...)

COMPLY!!!!!! (ding, ding, ding!!!! Winner winner, chicken dinner!!!)

If a police officer does not follow the law, the public does not have the right to not obey an officer. Take it up with a judge. Resisting and not following commands does not do anything but escalate.

If it is "chilling" to tell a person to follow the law and not resist arrest, then we have zero agreement. I feel the public needs to respect authority and take issues up with supervisors.

Would Mr. Garner be dead if he followed commands?
Would Ferguson have happened if Michael Brown would have gotten off the street when told?

Don't confuse these guys with common sense.

This discussion reminds me of medical malpractice cases where a defense expert will say that he wouldn't do what the defendant did but that it met the minimum standard of care.
I think a case could be made that since the force used was not necessary it was unlawful and therefore a battery and a violation of his civil rights under the Fourth Amendment. I think a charge could be made of criminal negligent homicide under New York law as well.
This is defined here. http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PE ... 25.10.html
Criminal negligence under New York law is defined here.http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/ONE/B/15/15.05
Here is a discussion of the mental state required for criminal negligence under NY law.
http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanccl2e/stu ... /NY_05.pdf
The punishment is probation up to 4 years.http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article70.htm#p70.00

As for causation it appears that the choke hold was a "but for" cause of death; this cases discusses the causation required for NY criminal cases (for example a defendant could be held responsible if his acts in conjunction with a victim 's pre-existing condition caused the death)
http://leagle.com/decision/198433363NY2 ... NTHONY%20M.

A an argument could perhaps be made for manslaughter on the second degree--the officer acted recklessly causing a person's death. http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.15

Manslaughter in the second degree is a class c felony. Punishable from probation up to 15 years.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/felony_se ... punishment

Once the force used is shown to be unlawful/unreasonable...then a criminal case could be made. Did the officer use excessive force under the Fourth Amendment in the circumstances of this case against a non-violent offender who was verbally resisting? Once that is shown a criminal case could be brought...whether we do or not comes down to value judgments on how we want to treat police officers who make significant mistakes in judgment.

freeman3 wrote:Once the force used is shown to be unlawful/unreasonable...then a criminal case could be made. Did the officer use excessive force under the Fourth Amendment in the circumstances of this case against a non-violent offender who was verbally resisting? Once that is shown a criminal case could be brought...whether we do or not comes down to value judgments on how we want to treat police officers who make significant mistakes in judgment.

All of what you say is interesting and could be on point, but we can't know without knowing what the GJ heard and saw. It is absolutely impossible. Anyone who says they do know is lying. The videotape and speculation is all we have.

All the more reason to do away with the grand jury system...what is the public to do when they are not given access to the evidence that would aid them in making an informed decision on the outcome of the case? Jury trials are public...but a case of public interest can be knocked out at the grand jury level in secret proceedings? It's wrong.

I would like to know....

(1) why the officers resorted to physical force without first using verbal persuasion?
(2) why the neck hold was used?
(3) is the hold typically used in arrests?
(4) was the hold used within policy?
(5) did his physical size impact the level of force used?
(6) did the officers do anything in response to his pleas of not being able to breathe?
(7) if nothing was done to lessen the amount of force used to allow him to breathe, what was the justification for not doing so? Why wasn't the pressure on the neck hold released at this point, particularly given the low-level offense involved?
(8) did any of the officers have knowledge of the victim's health condition?
(9) did the officers have knowledge of the victims criminal background?
(10) Was there anything that the victim did or said or anything on his criminal background that indicated that he posed a significant threat to the officers.
(11) what is the expert testimony on how the neck hold caused the death?
(12) any prior discipline/complaints with regard to the officer who used the neck hold?

It would be nice to know the answers to the above questions and presumably a lot of this was covered by the grand jury .

freeman3 wrote:I would like to know....

(1) why the officers resorted to physical force without first using verbal persuasion?
(2) why the neck hold was used?
(3) is the hold typically used in arrests?
(4) was the hold used within policy?
(5) did his physical size impact the level of force used?
(6) did the officers do anything in response to his pleas of not being able to breathe?
(7) if nothing was done to lessen the amount of force used to allow him to breathe, what was the justification for not doing so? Why wasn't the pressure on the neck hold released at this point, particularly given the low-level offense involved?
(8) did any of the officers have knowledge of the victim's health condition?
(9) did the officers have knowledge of the victims criminal background?
(10) Was there anything that the victim did or said or anything on his criminal background that indicated that he posed a significant threat to the officers.
(11) what is the expert testimony on how the neck hold caused the death?
(12) any prior discipline/complaints with regard to the officer who used the neck hold?

It would be nice to know the answers to the above questions and presumably a lot of this was covered by the grand jury .

I think those are all legitimate avenues of inquiry. We likely will find out--if the city doesn't settle with Garner's family. In a civil trial, we'll get those answers.

I'm not really sure why the GJ system is like it is. However, if there is a more progressive state than NY, I don't know what it is. It seems to me they could change the law if they chose.

I think they should release the info.

fate

However, if there is a more progressive state than NY, I don't know what it is

.

The United States is virtually the only common law jurisdiction in the world that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments

All US states have provisions for grand juries, but only half use them. 22 actually require their use...
There.


For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done.

Fate

Rubbish. This isn't some secret cabal. It's a "grand jury." I believe it was 20+ regular folks.

Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[16] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979).[17][18]

So it doesn't need a "cabal". It needs only the prosecuting attorney to present the argument in such a way that the Grand Jury, judging only what has been presented, makes their decision.
The line I quoted derives from the following judgement. Its certainly not rubbish. It is the basis for so much law in the western world today, and is a significant reason why progressive parts of the world, have eliminated the Grand Jury and the extraordinary powers it gives the prosecuter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex ... p_McCarthy

rickyp wrote:fate

However, if there is a more progressive state than NY, I don't know what it is

.

The United States is virtually the only common law jurisdiction in the world that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments

All US states have provisions for grand juries, but only half use them. 22 actually require their use...
There.

That has nothing to do with NY's progressiveness, but thank you so much for wasting two seconds of my life.

For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done.

Prove your assertion.

Fate

Rubbish. This isn't some secret cabal. It's a "grand jury." I believe it was 20+ regular folks.

So it doesn't need a "cabal". It needs only the prosecuting attorney to present the argument in such a way that the Grand Jury, judging only what has been presented, makes their decision.
The line I quoted derives from the following judgement. Its certainly not rubbish. It is the basis for so much law in the western world today, and is a significant reason why progressive parts of the world, have eliminated the Grand Jury and the extraordinary powers it gives the prosecuter...

That was 10 seconds wasted.

Use a spell-checker.

"Let's face it if the suspect had complied with the officer's directives from the initial contact and beyond, we wouldn't be talking about this today."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO5RdyEE1DQ