Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They couldn't find him guilty of intentionally killing him. This also has been covered multiple times. Unintentionally? From what I've read they never had that option.
There is a reason they refuse to release the G.J. testimony like in Ferguson.
Exactly, Reckless Endangerment would have been the easiest to charge from a proof standoint, but the Staten Island DA Dan Donovan never allowed that to be an option.
How was he a thug. He wasn't harming anyone. He didn't threaten, kill, rape or rob anyone. He was just trying to make a living for his family. Contrary to belief, some don't like living on welfare so they do what they can to provide for their family. What do you guys want. Do you want to pay for welfare for them or should they try and provide for themselves. What I find fascinating is that I agree with conservative talk show hosts about this.
He was attempting to do the exact same thing for which he had already been arrested several times.
It's not like it was anything new for this guy.
Yes, it was a really bad situation, and shouldn't have happened--but why did he keep doing the same thing over and over--and expecting not to be called out on it?
Originally Posted by natalie469 How was he a thug. He wasn't harming anyone. He didn't threaten, kill, rape or rob anyone. He was just trying to make a living for his family. Contrary to belief, some don't like living on welfare so they do what they can to provide for their family. What do you guys want. Do you want to pay for welfare for them or should they try and provide for themselves. What I find fascinating is that I agree with conservative talk show hosts about this.
Oh I don't know, maybe because he was arrested OVER THRITY TIMES?????
He had a family, anything you do, reflects on others, so after the first time he was arrested, number 1, I would have been so embarrassed, number 2, I would have lost my job...
He was a small time thug, not caring about how his reputation impacted his family....
Because he was telling at the officers to let him alone, although he was breaking the law and I don't care, what he was selling, he was still breaking the law, period!!! Plus all the prior arrests, oh, I don't know, maybe the police knew him on a first name basis, and were watching him....maybe the other arrests, he gave the officers a hard time, it is really difficult to hand cuff a 300 lb man over 6 foot tall....
you try it sometime, try and put hand cuffs on someone that size who is resisting.
If he hadn't resisted arrest, he'd still be here...all he had to do was put his hands behind his back, period.
Why is it, everyone seems to think this guy was lily white...same with the Ferguson boy?
if you want cops not to use firearms allow them some other weapons to subdue violent offenders. you sue them whenever they use anything else than a glock. dont tell me they need to wrestle all offenders into submission, to assume that a violent offender that jumps on a cop and tries to grab his gun is unarmed is irrational. . it is a very very bad assumption even if it is true on account of the offenders size and age. you my friends have sued the police departments into this ugly position. he cant use any weapon but a glock without a law suit. this is not the history nor tradition of law enforcement in this country nor any other-- black or white-- makes no difference. flashing light means the same world over, dont jump on cops.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 12-08-2014 at 12:46 PM..
They couldn't find him guilty of intentionally killing him. This also has been covered multiple times. Unintentionally? From what I've read they never had that option.
There is a reason they refuse to release the G.J. testimony like in Ferguson.
If you can understand an autopsy report, then you can understand why 1 officer was not totally responsible for his death. It appears to be a team effort and had they investigated him and the officers that put the pressure on top of him then maybe they would have found different.
Oh I don't know, maybe because he was arrested OVER THRITY TIMES?????
He had a family, anything you do, reflects on others, so after the first time he was arrested, number 1, I would have been so embarrassed, number 2, I would have lost my job...
He was a small time thug, not caring about how his reputation impacted his family....
Because he was telling at the officers to let him alone, although he was breaking the law and I don't care, what he was selling, he was still breaking the law, period!!! Plus all the prior arrests, oh, I don't know, maybe the police knew him on a first name basis, and were watching him....maybe the other arrests, he gave the officers a hard time, it is really difficult to hand cuff a 300 lb man over 6 foot tall.... you try it sometime, try and put hand cuffs on someone that size who is resisting.
If he hadn't resisted arrest, he'd still be here...all he had to do was put his hands behind his back, period.
Why is it, everyone seems to think this guy was lily white...same with the Ferguson boy?
But hey, it's always the cops.....yeah, right!
If it was me and 5 other cops it wouldn't be that hard to hand cuff one man. The way the cops went about it, having only one officer attempt to do the arrest was beyond stupid. You don't need police training of any kind to know that 5 or 6 average guys is stronger that ONE big guy.
The second bolded statement, maybe so. But resisting arrest isn't what actually killed him. What actually killed him was the choke hold and the pressure put on him by the other cops when he was on the ground. The other cops made the choice to treat him like that which is the issue. The cops need to be held responsible for THEIR actions. The fact that Eric Garner was resisting arrest does not give the cops a free pass to do anything they wanted and be immune from criminal charges if they chose to do something incredibly stupid.
Please note - resisting arrest is a felony - and an assault and battery on the arresting officer.
Ergo, the officer is generally absolved of any criminal intent in the pursuance of his duty to make an arrest.
Without criminal intent, there can be no crime.
Do not believe me - go read law for yourself.
You will also find that fugitives from justice are outside the constitutional protections.
This is why Bounty Hunters have such sweeping authority.
Resisting arrest is very foolish.
Resisting arrest in New York is a misdemeanor.
Quote:
A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person. Resisting arrest is a class A misdemeanor.
I’d start by saying this. “A man, a member of our community, has been killed by another. Only a trial court can sort out what exactly happened and what defenses, if any, may apply. I believe in our trial system above all others in the world. I ask for an indictment so that all voices can be heard in a public courtroom with advocates for both sides in front of trial jurors from the community. This room is not the room to end this story. It’s where the story begins.”
I’d ask them not to consider the defenses the men may raise at trial, because these are irrelevant to the question of indictment. Judges routinely tell my clients — indigent, poor, often young men of color — that they will face trial because probable cause is an exceedingly low standard of proof. All it requires is a suspicion that a crime occurred and a suggestion that the defendant may be responsible for the crime.
So how is it that police shoot an unarmed boy in Ferguson and strangle an asthmatic man on Staten Island, and nobody found probable cause? The only explanation is that, rather than acting like prosecutors, these district attorneys acted like the officers’ attorneys.
[1] The officers were making an arrest for the unlawful sale of loose cigarettes - a heinous crime - enacted by the previous Mayor.
[2] Yes. But the officers in this case were not.
[3] Your belief is incorrect. Once the felony is committed (resisting arrest), the officer is generally absolved of any criminal intent in pursuit of his duty to make an arrest. Without criminal intent, there is no crime. At worst, it would be a civil case - if even that. Remember, a felon takes upon himself all consequences of his action.
I agree with your post. Of course it's sad that he died, but he was breaking the law. Obviously his crime was not a capital offense, but I do not believe his death was intentional. The police were trying to restrain him and the man had several health issues. It's tragic in any case, but I do not feel this is a race issue.
I am also puzzled by the comments on the crime of selling loose cigarettes. According to this Forbes article, many people sell "loosies" in New York and other states and make over $20,000 a year doing it.
[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/08/08/ny-man-who-died-during-arrest-attempt-allegedly-targeted-for-selling-untaxed-cigarettes/]NY Man Who Died During Arrest Attempt Allegedly Targeted For Selling Untaxed Cigarettes - Forbes[/url]
Just a personal note: I've been in Southwest Florida for over 20 years many of my neighbors are in their 70s and 80s and make less than $10 an hour in supermarkets to supplement their Social Security checks. A janitor who worked in my community a few years ago cleaning toilets, washing floors, emptying trash, etc., was 76 and had cancer. In 2005 I worked in a furniture store with an 81 year old woman. My list is too long, but the point is that breaking the law isn't the answer when you need extra money to pay bills, and having serious health issues hasn't kept law-abiding seniors with strong work ethics from being productive citizens.
If you can understand an autopsy report, then you can understand why 1 officer was not totally responsible for his death.
Strawman. You seem to be agreeing he is at least partially responsible which means you present the proper charges and have a trial.
Quote:
It appears to be a team effort and had they investigated him and the officers that put the pressure on top of him then maybe they would have found different.
This argument makes zero sense. None. zilch, nada.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
