Grand Jury announcement today!

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Ramhusker

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
13,665
Name
Bo Bowen
Eric Garner was an unlucky individual. The NYPD arrested over 510,000 people this year for misdemeanors and ONE died, ONE. I'd say that's not an alarming statistic. It was a very bad day for Garner but I don't think this case warrants a civil rights movement. I think it does prove a point on the law of averages in an individuals case in as much so to think when you are being arrested for the 31st time, something could go wrong sooner or later.
 

Ramhusker

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
13,665
Name
Bo Bowen
LA cops put my handicapped brother in the hospital with a choke hold. He was only trying to serve someone with a lawsuit, as he was working for a law firm at the time. But lady called the cops cause she didn't want to get served. Law firm was made up of some major power brokers, so cops almost lost their job and my bro got a settlement. But he got beat up pretty badly, and the guy has cerebral palsy. The cops also drove him around the city in the back of their car making bigoted jokes and threatening him with more "stuff".

I've also had to jump out of the way of a cop car which flew into my mom's driveway, as they somehow thought I was breaking into the home that I had been living in for 10yrs -- having to jump out of the way of a cop car is also what was reported as having happened to Brown. So, I can totally relate to the reported events.

Yeah, that tends to happen every once in a while when dumbasses walk down the middle of the street.

The cops that did your brother that way sound like they need a good caning. And they should of lost their job not almost.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyregion/kelly-bans-choke-holds-by-officers.html
The officer in the Garner video clearly had a chokehold.

I am a bigot towards police? This is why I avoid political discussions. You're a racist. That's how I'm supposed to respond, right?

Eggshell victim rule. Look it up.

Because he died later does not make them innocent of causing his death. So no, you're legally wrong about the bold.

Anyways, as I said before, you wouldn't charge murder because of the high mens rea that accompanies it. I doubt you could reach the level of extreme recklessness necessary in the New York murder statute.

However, you could charge manslaughter in the second degree or criminally negligent homicide depending on the mens rea you could meet.

Face it jrry the blue you put in that post IS EXACTLY what I would be if I expanded my evaluation of the dead guy to be black people ,but I don't for you to make the comments globalizing about cops is only viewed differently because it's OK to be a bigot against them ,everyone has issues with a cop here and there.
If I were to allow the number of bad experiences I have had with cops over the years to be my threshold for becoming anti cop , then I would have surpassed that threshold for black people before I'd graduated HS, but every experience I have stands on it's own even though I know that there are a significant number of people of color who hate all things white it doesn't forgive me if I respond in kind.

AND BTW this is not a political discussion, if it's about politics for you then MAYBE you need to look at your political ideals ,this is strictly about the way people who have begun with your manifest attitude toward the police be the predisposition that leads you to conclude differently than others .
JUST watched a march in NY City with about 50 people chanting "What do we want ? dead cops , when do we want it ?now" SHOULD we now use that to expand it to the whole? FWIW as I said regardless of what either of us think or believe ,it doesn't forgive the decision to indict cops or black people either group .
Everyone has an excuse for their bigotry , it takes thought to overcome it.

NOW if you'd like to walk this global statement back or explain it I'll listen:
jrry wrote:

Nobody deserves to die but the cops need to take a look in the mirror and consider why people are so angry...and then they need to change for the better. Because it'll only get worse if they don't start fixing the issues. And the prosecutors need to stop letting them off the hook.


Seems your "mens rea" is pretty clear

Do you really think you can change the minds of those marchers ?
FWIW jrry there is a culture of hatred for cops that is cultivated , every arrest for some is an abuse of power , you won't change the hearts of those people by blaming cops as a whole , it will however buttress them.

Again this isn't political for me, if someone of a political persuasion with which you disagree happens to disagree with you writing it off to politics is just an argument without an argument it doesn't in any way address the issue itself in fact it's really a way of dismissing the other persons POV without any kind of evidence , now IF you are letting your political views effect your opinions about this I can't stop you ,but don't project that on me .
 

Stranger

How big is infinity?
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
7,182
Name
Hugh
Yeah, that tends to happen every once in a while when dumbasses walk down the middle of the street.

The cops that did your brother that way sound like they need a good caning. And they should of lost their job not almost.
well, in my case, I had to jump out of the way in my mother's own driveway.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Eric Garner was an unlucky individual. The NYPD arrested over 510,000 people this year for misdemeanors and ONE died, ONE. I'd say that's not an alarming statistic. It was a very bad day for Garner but I don't think this case warrants a civil rights movement. I think it does prove a point on the law of averages in an individuals case in as much so to think when you are being arrested for the 31st time, something could go wrong sooner or later.

That statement completely overlooks the issue at hand. Its not that he simply died getting arrested or the numbers behind it. Its the fact that the NYPD doesn't allow chokes like that, and have strict guidelines to when you can use one, and one rule was definitely violated, and the other most likely was as well, and yet it never even went to trial.

Police shouldn't overreact to a situation, violate rules which end up with a man dying, and not even be brought to trial. It sends a very poor message to the public. I agreed that Wilson was probably in the right (although saying he'd do it all the same wasn't using very much tact), but with this situation it seems the officer should at the very least go to trial.

The amount of people who die during arrest for petty crimes isn't the point, the point is officers shouldn't get a free pass just because of the badge. Had he died and there wasn't a violation of clear rules then I wouldn't have an issue, but there was a violation of regulations.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
well, in my case, I had to jump out of the way in my mother's own driveway.
Like I said man I don't doubt everyone has at least one story about an overzealous cop but that doesn't mean we can generalize and project with certitude ,if we did that for every group we interact with we'd hate everyone who wasn't the same color religion political party aint nobody got time for that
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Face it jrry the blue you put in that post IS EXACTLY what I would be if I expanded my evaluation of the dead guy to be black people ,but I don't for you to make the comments globalizing about cops is only viewed differently because it's OK to be a bigot against them ,everyone has issues with a cop here and there.
If I were to allow the number of bad experiences I have had with cops over the years to be my threshold for becoming anti cop , then I would have surpassed that threshold for black people before I'd graduated HS, but every experience I have stands on it's own even though I know that there are a significant number of people of color who hate all things white it doesn't forgive me if I respond in kind.

AND BTW this is not a political discussion, if it's about politics for you then MAYBE you need to look at your political ideals ,this is strictly about the way people who have begun with your manifest attitude toward the police be the predisposition that leads you to conclude differently than others .
JUST watched a march in NY City with about 50 people chanting "What do we want ? dead cops , when do we want it ?now" SHOULD we now use that to expand it to the whole? FWIW as I said regardless of what either of us think or believe ,it doesn't forgive the decision to indict cops or black people either group .
Everyone has an excuse for their bigotry , it takes thought to overcome it.

NOW if you'd like to walk this global statement back or explain it I'll listen:
jrry wrote:

Nobody deserves to die but the cops need to take a look in the mirror and consider why people are so angry...and then they need to change for the better. Because it'll only get worse if they don't start fixing the issues. And the prosecutors need to stop letting them off the hook.


Seems your "mens rea" is pretty clear

Do you really think you can change the minds of those marchers ?
FWIW jrry there is a culture of hatred for cops that is cultivated , every arrest for some is an abuse of power , you won't change the hearts of those people by blaming cops as a whole , it will however buttress them.

Again this isn't political for me, if someone of a political persuasion with which you disagree happens to disagree with you writing it off to politics is just an argument without an argument it doesn't in any way address the issue itself in fact it's really a way of dismissing the other persons POV without any kind of evidence , now IF you are letting your political views effect your opinions about this I can't stop you ,but don't project that on me .

Okay, Thor, drop the bigotry crap. If you can't go about this discussion without ad hominems then you shouldn't have it.

Yes, my intent is abundantly clear. Hold people accountable for their bad acts so police departments change their ways. There are a lot of good cops out there but the ones who aren't should be held accountable. And if you start doing that, then the police departments will start holding them accountable and forcing them to change or kicking them out the door.

I think the marchers minds would have been changed if the men who were unlawfully killed by those officers got the justice they deserved. But instead, the men who killed them were let off the hook. That would never happen to any of us. You better bet you'd be indicted if you killed a man like that while trying to conduct a citizen's arrest.

Okay, great, this isn't a political discussion so lets focus on the main point instead of you dancing around it.

Do you condone what those officers did in those two situations? And how on earth was Garner not placed in a chokehold? Which I already showed are banned by the NYPD.
 

RamzFanz

Damnit
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
9,029
Are we really at the point where we EXPECT every poor person and every person of color to be perfect and unindictable in order to seek justice? If a guy robs a store, arrest him in the manner prescribed by law. Mirandize him. Present the charges and offer him counsel. Have him arraigned before a judge. None of this requires killing him unless he poses an imminent threat to the life of the officer or others. Even then, non-lethal means of handling situations should be available.

That's what Wilson was trying to do. Stop Brown, investigate, and possibly arrest. I would think mirandized and all considering Wilson's history of being a good cop.

Where this entire discussion has gone astray is when the evidence that Wilson did nothing wrong is thrown out in lieu of a more "righteous" position.

What is the proper manner of dealing with a criminal who just assaulted you, tried to take your gun, and is now charging at you relentlessly despite numerous warnings to stop?

Would you mace a 6'5" 290 LB man who was charging you after he just assaulted you and attempted to take your gun? Is it now the obligation of a person defending themselves to wait until they are on the ground being beaten by a criminal and risking their own death before they are allowed to act?

Did wilson not stop firing to give Brown a chance to surrender? Did he not warn Brown over and over?
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
That's what Wilson was trying to do. Stop Brown, investigate, and possibly arrest. I would think mirandized and all considering Wilson's history of being a good cop.

Where this entire discussion has gone astray is when the evidence that Wilson did nothing wrong is thrown out in lieu of a more "righteous" position.

What is the proper manner of dealing with a criminal who just assaulted you, tried to take your gun, and is now charging at you relentlessly despite numerous warnings to stop?

Would you mace a 6'5" 290 LB man who was charging you after he just assaulted you and attempted to take your gun? Is it now the obligation of a person defending themselves to wait until they are on the ground being beaten by a criminal and risking their own death before they are allowed to act?

Did wilson not stop firing to give Brown a chance to surrender? Did he not warn Brown over and over?
Exactly.

I am entirely convinced that, whether or not Brown had planned to do so, he essentially committed suicide-by-cop, putting Wilson into a situation where the only choices were to use lethal force or to be assaulted and possibly killed, leaving his gun in the hands of Brown.
 

RamzFanz

Damnit
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
9,029
Exactly.

I am entirely convinced that, whether or not Brown had planned to do so, he essentially committed suicide-by-cop, putting Wilson into a situation where the only choices were to use lethal force or to be assaulted and possibly killed, leaving his gun in the hands of Brown.

In the end, regardless of how the prosecutor handled the case, we all now know there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there wasn't even evidence of a crime at all except Brown's crimes.

None of the forensics countered Wilson's account. Half of the witnesses supported Wilson's account. Of the other half, most, if not all, were not credible. Johnson's story changed and could not be true. A girl admitted she wasn't even there. Another woman admitted she lied and had a story that couldn't be true for several undeniable reasons.
 

RamzFanz

Damnit
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
9,029
Let me add that there is an elephant in the room that people want to ignore. The prosecutor is OBLIGATED to not pursue an indictment if he believes the person is innocent even if he believes he could get an indictment. He is an officer of the court and is bound by duty to seek justice and NOT just indictments. I think he failed in not dismissing this case himself and only went to the grand jury to cover his ass. The proper thing to do would be to state there would be no indictment because there is no evidence of a crime.

Self-defense is a complete defense. Once it is determined that self-defense was used, there are no underlying crimes to consider. You do NOT need a grand jury or trial to determine self-defense, it's well within the prosecutor's authority and happens ALL the time.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Let me add that there is an elephant in the room that people want to ignore. The prosecutor is OBLIGATED to not pursue an indictment if he believes the person is innocent even if he believes he could get an indictment. He is an officer of the court and is bound by duty to seek justice and NOT just indictments. I think he failed in not dismissing this case himself and only went to the grand jury to cover his ass. The proper thing to do would be to state there would be no indictment because there is no evidence of a crime.

Self-defense is a complete defense. Once it is determined that self-defense was used, there are no underlying crimes to consider. You do NOT need a grand jury or trial to determine self-defense, it's well within the prosecutor's authority and happens ALL the time.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where DAs were expected to seek indictments even if they believed no crime was committed.
 

RamzFanz

Damnit
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
9,029
Here's a perfect example of what I was just posting:

""I've come to the conclusion that criminal charges are not appropriate in this case, and I am releasing all of the information related to this investigation so that you, the public, can see all the facts related to this decision," Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm told reporters Monday."

"In a report, he wrote that the officer's use of force was "justified self-defense and that defense cannot be reasonably overcome to establish a basis to charge Officer Manney with a crime." (emphasis mine)

""The reason that our job is unique is our obligation is not to tell people necessarily what they want to hear. We have to follow our ethical obligations and the law, and sometimes that's very difficult ... " (emphasis mine)

When self-defense is given as the reason for the killing, the DA has to overcome it for there to even be a crime to consider. If you CAN'T overcome the self-defense claim, there is no underlying crime. It doesn't exist.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/us/milwaukee-police-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Okay, Thor, drop the bigotry crap. If you can't go about this discussion without ad hominems then you shouldn't have it.

Yes, my intent is abundantly clear. Hold people accountable for their bad acts so police departments change their ways. There are a lot of good cops out there but the ones who aren't should be held accountable. And if you start doing that, then the police departments will start holding them accountable and forcing them to change or kicking them out the door.

I think the marchers minds would have been changed if the men who were unlawfully killed by those officers got the justice they deserved. But instead, the men who killed them were let off the hook. That would never happen to any of us. You better bet you'd be indicted if you killed a man like that while trying to conduct a citizen's arrest.

Okay, great, this isn't a political discussion so lets focus on the main point instead of you dancing around it.

Do you condone what those officers did in those two situations? And how on earth was Garner not placed in a chokehold? Which I already showed are banned by the NYPD.
And the fact is jrry, the men you term "unlawfully killed " were according to "the law" found to be killed in a sufficiently lawful way that those who killed them were NOT let off the hook , they were subjected to Grand Jury investigation,which declined charges .So exactly under Who's law are you claiming they were "unlawfully killed" YOUR'S ?

I get your idea about holding people accountable for their "bad acts" and FWIW that's exactly what the cops were tasked with doing, in both cases the Brown and Garner case they resisted ,another crime.

How you and I would be treated is irrelevant,we aren't obliged to make citizens arrests,these cops would be derelict in their duty had they not confronted them, it was the responsibility of the dead guys to submit (not doing so IS a crime).

Once again you generalize and clearly because that is your predisposition on the subject .

No I won't drop the bigotry "crap" because it is what predisposing IS ,if you assume that the reason the cops acted the way they did is in any way a manifestation of racial bias based on the differing race of the dead guy and the cop or the impression that's how cops treat black people ,that's bigotry,that sort of charge has to be proven on an individual basis and it has not and since it hasn't it's judging an individual because they are a member of a group FOR being a part of that group based on impression not fact.
It's no different than saying something like "these black guys need to clean up their act" and FWIW you COULD if you were so disposed use the disproportionate number of black inmates as your "evidence", I don't BTW, I personally see the war on drugs as a sham and regard the prisoners of that war to be an indication of just who that war is being waged against.
Then again IF you wanted to you could use the incredibly dysfunctional reaction of burning a neighborhood based on an impression as "evidence" that these black people yada yada" again I don't ,what I do say is this there is an element of the police ,there is an element of black society .that pre judge one another in an entirely bigoted manner and that they keep giving one another "evidence" of their bigotry being valid.

I don't think it serves the cause of eliminating that bigotry to make charges like murder or terming their deaths "unlawful" when the lawful procedures have been performed just because you aren't satisfied with the finding and railing on with your judgments.

Perform this experiment if you will have someone with a tape recorder stand five feet from you, have another person choke you to where you CAN'T BREETH, and see if you can utter those words clearly audible to the recorder ,if you can't breathe you can't produce sound by forcing air through the vocal chords BY DEFINITION,can't be done, so even the dead guys testimony is bull shit.
I use the words "dead guys" because using the word victim in itself defines the conclusion, not out of any insensitivity I think it's tragic these guys surrendered their lives over trivial crimes /matters that clearly they participated in the escalation of hostilities to the point they died .

I would also submit that it is my belief their "mens rea" was so contributory to their fate that others will make the same mistakes they did and end up surrendering their lives while subscribing to the belief system you are espousing when all they have to do is obey the law and let themselves be arrested and deal with the situation THE WAY THE LAW PRESCRIBES.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
I wouldn't want to live in a country where DAs were expected to seek indictments even if they believed no crime was committed.
I got into a heated debate with a relative who had been a cop whose father in law had been a cop and his brother in law is still one. he said that it was the polices job to find evidence to convict people once they were charged, I disagreed and told him "no it's their job to seek the truth because if conviction is the objective then suppressing exculpatory evidence becomes the job".
Yeah I agree malicious prosecution is a problem but going far enough to say it's the rule is lazy thinking ,that has to be proven as well,never assumed.
NOT BTW that you did ,just an observation
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
And the fact is jrry, the men you term "unlawfully killed " were according to "the law" found to be killed in a sufficiently lawful way that those who killed them were NOT let off the hook , they were subjected to Grand Jury investigation,which declined charges .So exactly under Who's law are you claiming they were "unlawfully killed" YOUR'S ?

Yep. That's exactly the problem we're discussing. Maybe this argument would hold water if we didn't have two videos showing the world what they did.

They were unlawfully killed under the law of this country and the prosecution chose to let the grand jury take the heat. Because if you couldn't get a charge based on the videos in the Garner and Crawford cases, you're a piss poor prosecutor or you're purposefully trying not to get them charged.

And that is why people are pissed off.

I don't think you know how low the bar is for getting a person CHARGED. We're not talking conviction here. We're talking charges.

I get your idea about holding people accountable for their "bad acts" and FWIW that's exactly what the cops were tasked with doing, in both cases the Brown and Garner case they resisted ,another crime.

With this line of logic, you can justify abuse of force with any arrest. And that's not a world I want to live in.

Garner's "resisting" can hardly be classified as such. The man threw a non-violent temper tantrum. He didn't attack the officers, he didn't try to harm them, etc. All he did was try to pull away when they started grabbing him.

You want to hold people accountable for bad acts? Do it. I don't mean hold some people, I mean hold everyone. Using a chokehold, which was banned by the NYPD, on a non-violent suspect who committed a petty offense which resulted in his death is a bad act.

How you can sit here and continue to justify it is beyond comprehension.

And don't even get me started on John Crawford. What did he do to resist the police? Stood there and talked on his cell phone?

No I won't drop the bigotry "crap" because it is what predisposing IS ,if you assume that the reason the cops acted the way they did is in any way a manifestation of racial bias based on the differing race of the dead guy and the cop or the impression that's how cops treat black people ,that's bigotry,that sort of charge has to be proven on an individual basis and it has not and since it hasn't it's judging an individual because they are a member of a group FOR being a part of that group based on impression not fact.

No, it's not bigotry. What you're doing here is a cowardly way of discussing a controversial topic. It's truly disgusting.

John Crawford was shot and killed because he was holding a WalMart BB Gun in a WalMart...probably because he was trying to purchase the damn thing. And yet the guy was shot and killed by the police on video without them giving him a chance.

Do you honestly think a white male would have been shot like that? Not a chance in hell. And if they shot and killed a white male, do you think they would have gotten off without being charged? Also, not a chance in hell.

You can pretend that I'm some bigot and that a white person would have been treated the same in that situation but we both know that's a lie. And it's wrong. It's inexcusably wrong.

It's no different than saying something like "these black guys need to clean up their act" and FWIW you COULD if you were so disposed use the disproportionate number of black inmates as your "evidence", I don't BTW, I personally see the war on drugs as a sham and regard the prisoners of that war to be an indication of just who that war is being waged against.

It's very different. Police officers are a member of an occupation...not a race.

And I'm not saying the cops need to clean up their act. I'm saying the cops should be held accountable for their actions. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm also saying that the cops need to change the way they treat people. They need to treat people equally. There's no bigotry.

So cut the shit and discuss this like an adult.

I don't think it serves the cause of eliminating that bigotry to make charges like murder or terming their deaths "unlawful" when the lawful procedures have been performed just because you aren't satisfied with the finding and railing on with your judgments.

You better fucking bet I'm not satisfied with the findings. In 1961, 18 men were charged with violating the civil rights of three activists in Mississippi. The state of Mississippi refused to prosecute them for murder which forced the federal government to charge them.

Do you consider what those men did to not be unlawful under the law of Mississippi? Should people have been satisfied with those judgements?

I saw John Crawford ON VIDEO get shot by the police to DEATH for holding WalMart merchandise in the form of a BB gun in a WalMart. He broke no laws. And he was killed by police without being given a real chance. The police officers WERE NOT CHARGED. There is fucking video. We can all see the injustice. There isn't a jurisdiction in this country where that is lawful.

The cops very well might not have been convicted. They would have likely been afforded a mistake of fact defense. But you better fucking bet there was enough there to charge them. The video, itself, is enough evidence.

And Eric Garner? He was killed while non-violently resisting an arrest for a petty offense by a banned chokehold ON VIDEO. There is more than enough there for charges. The fact that chokeholds are banned and that is what caused his death is enough for negligent homicide to be charged.

Perform this experiment if you will have someone with a tape recorder stand five feet from you, have another person choke you to where you CAN'T BREETH, and see if you can utter those words clearly audible to the recorder ,if you can't breathe you can't produce sound by forcing air through the vocal chords BY DEFINITION,can't be done, so even the dead guys testimony is bull crap.
I use the words "dead guys" because using the word victim in itself defines the conclusion, not out of any insensitivity I think it's tragic these guys surrendered their lives over trivial crimes /matters that clearly they participated in the escalation of hostilities to the point they died .

http://time.com/3618279/eric-garner-chokehold-crime-staten-island-daniel-pantaleo/
On Aug. 1, a New York City medical examiner determined that the cause of death in the Garner case was “homicide,” specifically the neck compressions from the Pantaleo’s chokehold and “the compression of [Garner’s] chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police,” according to spokeswoman, Julie Bolcer.

You want to rethink that argument.

I would also submit that it is my belief their "mens rea" was so contributory to their fate that others will make the same mistakes they did and end up surrendering their lives while subscribing to the belief system you are espousing when all they have to do is obey the law and let themselves be arrested and deal with the situation THE WAY THE LAW PRESCRIBES.

That's the problem. You just don't seem to get it.

I am all for people not resisting arrest. But that's not the issue here. The issue here isn't the resistance; it's the police doing their job and being held accountable when they go above and beyond what they're legally allowed to do.

When people do resist, as American citizens, we still have rights. And the police officers, as American citizens, have to follow the law. When they don't follow the law and uphold those rights, they should be held accountable.

Your unwillingness to agree with that is baffling to me.

The solution isn't for everyone to not resist arrest. That's unrealistic. The solution is for the police to hold their people accountable when they break the law.

It amazes me that the people tasked with upholding our laws are so quick to hurry to the aid of fellow officers that broke it.

And what about John Crawford? Where is his justice? HE DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW. He was shot and killed. He wasn't resisting. He wasn't breaking the law. The man was talking on his cell phone while holding a WalMart BB gun in a freaking WalMart and the police killed him. He did nothing deserving to be shot and they killed him.

And they weren't charged. How could you think that's right? How can you justify that? I don't want to live in a country where there is any person that thinks that is acceptable.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
I wouldn't want to live in a country where DAs were expected to seek indictments even if they believed no crime was committed.

Agreed. And I wouldn't want to live in a country where DAs folded to the pressure of their police counter-parts and botched indictments to appease them. Unfortunately, I think I am living in one.

The whole Michael Brown situation shouldn't have gone to the grand jury. The DA's office used it to shift the blame to the grand jury when charges weren't filed. And they purposefully did a shitty job of prosecuting in it to make sure charges wouldn't be filed.

I don't know if there was a case to be made...but if there wasn't, it's their job to not file charges. They shouldn't be using to the grand jury as a scapegoat to avoid bad press.

Now, the Eric Garner and John Crawford cases are a different story. I'm near certain that charges should have been filed. And I'm near certain that those prosecutors did the same thing. Because these men were officers, they purposefully did a shitty job of prosecuting the case so the grand jury wouldn't force them to take it to trial. And that's wrong.

There's not a single person in this world who can tell me that John Crawford's killers shouldn't have been taken to trial. There's overwhelming evidence for charges to be filed.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Didn't say a thing about Crawford because I know nothing about the case, but even given every allegation you might make about the case it doesn't prove a generality,hell if your worst assumptions about the three cases were all true it still wouldn't.

Maybe you aught to look up the definition of bigotry jrry,it pertains to way more than race ,it covers the prejudgment of groups of virtually all sort, religion, socioeconomic status, race and FWIW profession, it's a very expansive term and produced by the same thought patterns.

Joke : What do you call a bus load of lawyers going over a cliff?........a good start , that's bigotry

Now cowardly, IMO that's pretty inaccurate ,since when did it become cowardly to express ones opinion ? To term another's view that way even though they might become hostile over it . It would be cowardly IMO to stand mute and let the inconsistency go unchallenged .to not show the self righteous how they are and risk insult. Nah ain't skeered ? Sticks and stones man
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Let me clarify some things first using these incidents as proof would at best be a sampling error,this is the minor point but I think you know statistics well enough to accept that.
Second and ,most important to say it's bigotry isn't meant to call anyone a bigot, that would be an overreach, for example I have little doubt Charles Manson performed some altruistic deeds during his life,that would not make him an altruist, we are all capable of great and not so great things.
We are not justifiably defined in total by single acts ,so while a person may engage in some of those not so great things it doesn't mean we are solely that, if I charged that it would put me in the same category as those who wear the hands up don't shoot T's .

Again not saying you ARE a bigot , just that the act of judging police in that general way is an act of bigotry and only that because they are not easy to be sympathetic towards because of whatever the motivation is it allowed. We all recoil at economic bigotry towards the poor , but sit by and don't challenge it when it's practiced towards the rich because of course they aren't easy to be sympathetic towards , but it doesn't mean their humanity isn't being challenged .