• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903,2680]

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death


You can legally resist unlawful commands by law enforcement up to and including the use of deadly force. That was an SC ruling around the turn of the 20th Century - don't remember the citation offhand.

As you point out arrests made out of legitimate errors are lawful and you are legally required to comply with them. Also given the extreme deference prosecutors and courts give police I'd think your chances with that as a defense in all but the most obvious cases are slim.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:
Well perhaps not, but not the case here. He wasn't ever charged that we know of for tax evasion. He was selling illegal merchandise. Big difference.
Click to expand...



59% of all cigarettes sold in the city are bootleg. Is it big enough a difference to say the officers acted appropriately here? I don't.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death


If all is as it seems I'm likely to agree.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

CRUE CAB said:
Nope, was not there. But you think cops just waltz up to someone and choke them out for kicks?
Click to expand...



yes, they decided to harrass a citizen they have had run-ins with before. In this case he had broken up a fight and they used it as an opportunity to harrass him again.

The video shows this, clearly
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Misterveritis said:
The fact that he was morbidly obese is what we should be outraged over.
Click to expand...



Not my problem. people are free to poison themselves as they wish. Does not mean that police should be allowed to kill him.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death


I agree but the first "illegal" act was resisting arrest (well actually it was selling "loose" cigarettes to an undercover officer) so if we are playing the which came first game the blame still originates with the perp and not the officers trying to arrest him.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death


I love how people who pretend to believe in liberty and freedom voice opinions aligning them with the virtues of a police state.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death




You should remove that "libertarian" from your political lean.


What law did he specifically break in this incident? What was he charged with? What was he doing?

Please link to his "30 convictions".

Police claim he was selling LOOSE cigarettes. He had a single pack of untaxed cigarettes on him (remember 59% of all cigarettes in the city are bootleg).




Remember he was supposedly selling loose cigarettes. here is the law:



Criminal Sale of Untaxed Cigarettes (NY State Tax Law § 1814) | New York Criminal Defense Blawg

"(b) Any person, other than an agent licensed by the commissioner, who
possesses or transports for the purpose of sale any unstamped or
unlawfully stamped packages of cigarettes subject to tax imposed by
section four hundred seventy-one of this chapter, or who sells or offers
for sale unstamped or unlawfully stamped packages of cigarettes in
violation of the provisions of article twenty of this chapter shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who violates the provisions of this
subdivision after having previously been convicted of a violation of
this subdivision within the preceding five years shall be guilty of a
class E felony."




Read it, in order for it to be considered a misdemeanor, it would have to be the second time and he would have to be selling packs. so, this guy was attacked, wrassled to the ground and killed because of single cigarettes and a single pack of untaxed cigarettes that is hardly even a misdemeanor.



It's no worse, ****, its less than a reckless driving ticket. if you accidentally get stopped for doing 30 over the limit, should you be dragged out of your car and killed?


I don't think so.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:
Where in that link does it say he was breaking up a fight? He was approached by undercover officers because he was known to sell illegal merchandise. He recognized them as cops and decided to "fight back".
Click to expand...


mybad:

11 Facts You Should Know About Eric Garner's Death


something's gone terribly wrong in my country. This isn't the freedom I fought for.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:
Yes, he had been arrested 31 times preciously for selling illegal cigs. He was first approached by an undercover officer looking to make it 32 when Garner decided he'd had enough of the police.
Click to expand...

Link to the now "31" times.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I love how people have a pompous almost superior attitude bc this guy had priors. They're so focused on some minor tickets that they forget that this man was married for 27 yrs, had 6 kids and grandkids that he was trying to provide for. These same people who point out the "he's no angel" argument to justify his killing, also didn't do their research on this cop who isn't an angel either.

If you watched a prostitute get raped and killed on camera, would you throw her past out there too? You know, to make her look worse and her killer look better?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death



Manslaughter means there is intent without premeditaion.

They would have had to prove that the officer intended to take his life.

So it's no wonder they did not even consider the lesser Manslaughter charge.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Fenton said:
Manslaughter means there is intent without premeditaion.

They would have had to prove that the officer intended to take his life.

So it's no wonder they did not even consider the lesser Manslaughter charge.
Click to expand...

I think it most states a reckless disregard for the person's life is all that is required for manslaughter with or without intention to do harm.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Fenton said:
Manslaughter means there is intent without premeditaion.

They would have had to prove that the officer intended to take his life.

So it's no wonder they did not even consider the lesser Manslaughter charge.
Click to expand...



NY considers both voluntary and involuntary, the latter which the "mens rea" does not require "malice aforethought".
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Fenton said:
Yea, telling a Officer" everytime you see me you try to arrest me, It stops today " is a sure fire way to get yourself arrested.

He effectively communicated to the Officers that there was going to be a confrontation.
Click to expand...


Police officers are supposed to be professionals, not have knee jerk reactions to citizens having enough with their harassment.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

ReverendHellh0und said:
Link to the now "31" times.
Click to expand...

I don't think he realizes that pointing to the 31 grievious offences of - wait for it - .... selling bootleg smokes - doesn't make Erick Gardner the evil criminal they want him to be. For all intents and purposes he was a guy in NYC trying to make some money in the same way tens of thousands of NYers do. He didn't deserve to be attacked like a violent thug for it. But that is the MO these days and to some extent they have an interest in keeping it that way. Person is killed by police? Every supposed crime they've ever committed comes out of the woodwork to paint them as criminal.

As an example, in Orange County California a young man (Kelly Thomas) with mental illness was beaten viciously by police and died a few days later from his injuries. When that incident came to light, some of the same people justifying this - went to that thread and started talking about how he'd assaulted someone years earlier, how he was a danger to society. Never you mind that one of the cops who beat Kelly could be heard saying that he intended to inflict harm on Kelly.

That's what is happening here. A person was attacked by police officers, because he wasn't as compliant as they'd want him to be and he lost his life for it. That person lost his life because of policies which the NYPD has banned and over the supposed crime of not enjoying being bullied for bull**** crimes. Some of the small government, armchair constitutionality scholars are coming out to defend the actions and attack Garner because what? He stood up to the bull**** bullying from some of the NYPD's finest?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

ReverendHellh0und said:
yes, they decided to harrass a citizen they have had run-ins with before. In this case he had broken up a fight and they used it as an opportunity to harrass him again.

The video shows this, clearly
Click to expand...
Boo hoo, I was harassed every time I pulled out of my drive when I was young. Funny though, I didn't get choked out.
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

Juanita said:
He seems to have just been standing there and there does not appear to be any cigs on his person! They said that he had just broken up a fight.
Click to expand...

Then decided to resist detainment.
 
Authoritarian statists

Kobie said:
Yet Misterveritis dares brand those who disagree with him "statists."
Click to expand...
You get that moniker when it is clear it applies. I do not believe I have mentioned statism or authoritarian statism in this thread. There have been a few who see this as an opportunity to nationalize the local police to keep injustices from ever happening. Those fools are authoritarian statists. It is not your disagreements that get you the title. It is your beliefs, desires, and goals.
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

Deuce said:
Murder apologist.
Click to expand...
Funny, I guess juries and courts don't mean anything any more. LOL Don't be a criminal and cops wont treat you like one.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

CRUE CAB said:
Boo hoo, I was harassed every time I pulled out of my drive when I was young. Funny though, I didn't get choked out.
Click to expand...

Did you ever asked them if they thought you were a coward? That would explain why they'd keep coming back to harass you. They probably thought you'd allow the harassment without complaining.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

If this dude had been a white guy wearing a short sleeve dress shirt and tie, sporting a young republican haircut, the right wingers here would be screaming for the cops hide.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Declan said:
I think it most states a reckless disregard for the person's life is all that is required for manslaughter with or without intention to do harm.
Click to expand...


I'm just posting the LEGAL Definition of Manslaughter.

If they didn't indict him for manslaughter it tells me that NYs definition is in line with the Definition I posted.

Also, a LEO struggling with a resisting non-compliant suspect does not constitute a reckless disregard of that person's life.

The vast majority of resisting suspects can and DO survive being forcibly taken into custody.


But imagine if that were the case. That Police Officers were no longer allowed to use force to take in a suspect that was non compliant.

Anyone and everyone could simply tell a Police Officer " F-u, don't touch me , I'm not going anywhere with you ".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…