-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Staten Island Grand Jury Does Not Indict in Eric Garner Case
- Thread starter Syriel
- Start date
- Status
Even when they break the law themselves?
It's not a trial.
A grand jury does what the prosecutor suggests, and if a prosecutor doesn't want to indict cops...
Brian Griffin
Member
I'll admit I don't know all the details. Someone posted earlier in the thread that CNN had reported that the jury was only given the option to indict if they believed he killed him with malicious intent.
Byakuya769
Member
Or take bans FOR bullshit.
Shouta
Member
Yeah. In that sense, I'm mad at the legal system more than the cops because that seems to be the failure point in these recent cases.
Narpas Sword0
Member
So if the police department bans choke holds because they are likely to kill people, and then someone uses one anyway and kills someone, what should happen next in the eyes of the law?
User Name Here
Member
We don't know what the prosecutor showed them. Your point would stand if they did show the video but usually what's done in a indictment proceeding is unknown.
Unfortunately.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
You support the law? Are you aware of the fact that the restraint technique that killed Garner has been banned from use by the NYPD for over 20 years?
Murder. She Wrote
Member
Are you twelve? Are we living on the same planet? How can you be so ignorant?
People who don't break the law or argue with authority still get fucked over all around the world, every day.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Can't say I agree. Had he not died and say, merely suffered some brain damage from lack of oxygen or a punctured lung, the likelihood of the cops actually receiving negative legal consequences would have been much higher. The victim would live to testify and the legal burdens for proof would be much lower.
EnlightenedMint
Member
Maybe I want a perspective from someone in the protest? I know it's a crazy question since it's never been done before right?
what makes you actually sure this would have went different?
All I know is a man is dead from a maneuver that is supposedly outlawed and not a single person is being held accountable for it. Even if he didn't intend to kill him he still did. Does that mean I can run red lights with impunity as long as there was malicious intent?
My other question is, did the prosecutor intentionally mislead the jury?
That was my understanding of how a grand jury works but maybe I am wrong.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Listen to this man, folks.
WayneMorse
Banned
I have one:
Got pulled over, didn't have my registration, said the car was registered to my dad and he let me go with a warning without even bothering to check.
Or "__________________ while black"
MooseKnuckles
Banned
Then you should be absolutely outraged that a man was killed through the direct, unlawful actions of a police officer, and that said officer is going to avoid any and all meaningful punishment.
This, 'don't do anything wrong and you won't have anything to worry about' bullshit is so completely, willfully ignorant of what the actual issues are when it comes to these kinds of situations.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
There are people who follow that same sentiment all over the country. As you can see American society has no balls when it comes to holding law enforcement accountable for blatant abuses, even apparently when video proof removing all doubt is available. We are surrounded by 12 year olds.
Chie Satonaka
Member
Not relevant.
In this particular case, the victim was allegedly in the midst of a crime and resisting arrest. That's all that matters for people who think like the person you're responding to.
They don't care. There's no such thing as a fucking "accident" in this case. The officer was fully aware of what he was doing.
That this person is victim blaming in this thread and telling others not to break the law, all while the law enforcement officer kills the victim by BREAKING THE LAW should tell you all you need to know.
ABC News ‏@ABC 32m32 minutes ago
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152948945848812
NYT Metro Desk ‏@NYTMetro 27m27 minutes ago
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152948945848812
NYT Metro Desk ‏@NYTMetro 27m27 minutes ago
Gentleman Jack
Member
It wouldn't surprise me to learn at this point that this happens all the time. Prosecutors setting absurd standards for indictments against police officers in front of a grand jury, and the grand jury just can't meet those standards. Gotta protect that relationship, you gonna need those cops to lie on the stand later in some other, unrelated cases.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I didn't claim it would have been different, I said the likelihood would have been better. Victim lives to testify and challenge cop's versions (even when a video is present the cop can try to explain it away) and the prosecutors don't have the leeway to trump up the charges to 1st degree or malicious intent, and even if the prosecution was not acting in bad faith, the legal burden for injury vs. death is very different.
And to be clear, I don't think anyone was thinking, "Oh I better keep going so this person dies, I won't get in trouble then", but I do think the way cops are not punished and their understanding of legal risk/consequence impacts their training and the way they approach situations and their proclivity to engage in high levels of force.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Was about to post a lengthy post but didn't because I knew I would've been banned.
I'm not happy with this decision.
I'm not happy with this decision.
Biggu Bosu
Banned
Because he's white
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Black people have to be perfect humans in order to even get even the slightest whiff of justice.
It's an impossible standard because no human is perfect. And even when black people don't do ANYTHING wrong they are still shot or killed.
But keep doing what you do Acrid.
I posted this in the other cop thread about the girl that was killed in her sleep (rip). But I think the image speaks volume.
Needs a helicopter pad for the rich.
LegendofLex
Member
In the Michael Brown case, there was witness testimony that challenged the cop's version from the guy who was walking with Brown.
In this case, there was video footage showing that the cop did in fact break the law.
There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation between "more evidence" and "better outcome."
Brian Griffin
Member
I was pulled over for driving 80+ on a non-empty freeway and weaving in and out of lanes with 3 friends in the car with me.
Cop approached my window with his hand on his gun but then apologized for it when I proved it was my car and not stolen.
He gave me a ticket for negligent driving instead of the much more serious reckless driving.
He told me I was a very good driver but he had to give me a ticket because I could have scared the drunks driving like that.
#CrimingWhileWhite
jchap
Member
Best self defense is to treat cops like wasps. Stand really still and hope they go away on their own.
I wonder what it would take for a cop to actually be indicted.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Geezuz..we gettin got for underscores now???
Metal Goat
Banned
In all honesty I'm not surprised in the least, cops are just thugs who just so happened to be backed by the government.
Fox actually were shocked by this result, and don't understand how there wasn't an indictment. So even when Fox news is saying this....
(I don't watch Fox, someone else posted this earlier).
EDIT: they will probably still do what you said though after the fact. So nvm.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
My original post for context:
The victim living vs. victim dying is not simply about whether there is more or less evidence, it's about the fact that the legal burden for convicting an officer of killing someone is much higher than convicting them for seriously injuring or maiming someone. I'm not saying that the grand jury actually would have indicted had he lived and it was a question of police brutality instead, but I do think jurors are more likely to demand consequence when they can see and hear from the victim and not just their loved ones. In a death situation, the mindset too often seems to become "what a horrible accident, but why punish the cop even more, better to just let things go" whereas I think, perhaps wrongfully in terms of statistical likelihood, that jurors are less likely to leave a living victim with nothing to show for it.
a tollbooth makes more sense.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/crimingwhilewhite
To represent the wage gap and how much influence they have over the system? Not bad.
The technique used was banned by the NYPD. Breaking the law, and resisting arrest should not have led to that being done to him. It should have led to him being detained. The cop chose to use a lethal and banned technique, and also didn't let up after the citizen stopped resisting.
Him breaking the law really isn't relevant, as it has nothing to do with the cop using the technique he wasn't supposed to use (regardless if he resisted or not).
By your logic, if someone broke a law, argued with cops, the cop has the right to shoot you dead in the street. But because you broke the law, argued with cops...the murder was justified (or if not justified, you would focus again on the person breaking the law, and not the cop that ultimately took the life of another human being using excessive force or something criminal). No one is denying that I. The guy shouldn't have broken the law. II. Shouldn't have resisted arrest. But those two factors don't lead to murder/lethal chokes. They just don't. So you bringing them up is 100% victim blaming. I'm sorry, but it is.
They will. I bet you they are looking up Garner's past to see if he had any arrest record. They are gonna smear his image. Watch.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
No it doesn't. Rich people get free stuff thrown at them. They don't have to pay for justice. Their fame and influence guarantees it.
NullPointer
Member
Yep. The tollbooth would be for the poor.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked