Police chokehold on man ruled a homicide

[DMC]

Not necessarily, but you didn't answer my question.

Your question made false assumptions. It wasn't as much a question as it was an accusation disguised as a question. One instance doesn't equate to "any time" for me just as it didn't for you. That should answer your question. I give the jury benefit of the doubt over what limited information I have available to me. I might have a bias anyhow, which we all do, so that has to be taken into consideration as well and a jury of 14 or so won't be subject to the same individual bias that an individual is subject to, and we post as individuals.

[ChumpDumper]

The grand jury, which sat for nine weeks, heard from 50 witnesses, including 22 civilians who witnessed some part of the incident, the court order said. The remaining witnesses included police officers, emergency medical personnel and doctors, the order said. Grand jurors also saw four videos, medical records, photographs of the scene, and information about police training and policies, the order said.

Is that normal for a grand jury?

Sounds more like an actual trial.

[DMC]

Is that normal for a grand jury?

Sounds more like an actual trial.

It's probably a bit above normal time, but 3 to 6 weeks is standard.

[Blake]

" A New York City police officer's intentions at the moment he used a choke hold to arrest an unarmed black man weighed heavily in a Staten Island grand jury's decision not to indict the officer for the man's death, legal experts say.

"Intent. It's everything," former New York City prosecutor Zachary Johnson said. "In a case like this, there's just the fact of a homicide — a man was killed by another man. Not all homicide is illegal."

.....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...case/19895341/

[Blake]

" NEW YORK — The white New York City police officer whose choke hold led to the death of an unarmed black man has been sued three times for allegedly violating the cons utional rights of other blacks he and fellow cops arrested."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...sued/19899461/

He'll probably be sued again

[jjktkk]

I could be wrong, but I didn't notice if the police officer who administered the choke hold had any kind of weapon, like pepper spray, taser, police baton, etc... I thats the case, the officer accused had no way to subdue the suspect, either choke hold or shoot him. Again, I basing this on the one time I've seen the video. Was there an excessive force charged against the police officer?

[ChumpDumper]

I could be wrong, but I didn't notice if the police officer who administered the choke hold had any kind of weapon, like pepper spray, taser, police baton, etc... I thats the case, the officer accused had no way to subdue the suspect, either choke hold or shoot him. Again, I basing this on the one time I've seen the video. Was there an excessive force charged against the police officer?

Weren't there like three other officers there?

[jjktkk]

Yea, I'm just trying to figure out why that one officer felt compelled to try that chokehold on the suspect. Because he did have backup.

[ChumpDumper]

I call it Radio Raheem syndrome.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The grand jury, which sat for nine weeks, heard from 50 witnesses, including 22 civilians who witnessed some part of the incident, the court order said. The remaining witnesses included police officers, emergency medical personnel and doctors, the order said. Grand jurors also saw four videos, medical records, photographs of the scene, and information about police training and policies, the order said.
"The Grand Jury was instructed on relevant principles of law," the order said, including laws "regarding a police officer's use of physical force in making an arrest." The court did not disclose which charges the grand jury considered.
A prosecutor would have presented a grand jury with a range of possible charges ranging from murder to manslaughter, legal experts say. A grand jury need find only probable cause to indict. But almost every option would require the grand jury to consider the officer's intent, said former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
"Mistakes by police officers get them fired. It's only willful or harmful intent that gets them charged," Levenson said. "The big issue here is not so much what happened. The big issue is what was going on in the officer's mind."


So how much of all this evidence have you seen? Did Wild Cobra fill you in?

None of that addresses what I am getting at. Typical GJ has the prosecutor show only what demonstrates probable cause. For example, he could have only showed the video and medical examiners opinion and given a straightforward narrative. In Michael Brown's case he could have only shown the witnesses who said Brown was attempting to surrender and gotten an indictment.

That is not what happened at all. Instead he leaves the GJ in the wind with generalities and ask them to indict for their own reasons instead of reasons the prosecutor puts forth.

Quite frankly, your approach to looking at the proceedings seems naive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yea, I'm just trying to figure out why that one officer felt compelled to try that chokehold on the suspect. Because he did have backup.

And he was never trained to do that according to his department. Why indeed.

[ohmwrecker]

Your question made false assumptions. It wasn't as much a question as it was an accusation disguised as a question. One instance doesn't equate to "any time" for me just as it didn't for you. That should answer your question. I give the jury benefit of the doubt over what limited information I have available to me. I might have a bias anyhow, which we all do, so that has to be taken into consideration as well and a jury of 14 or so won't be subject to the same individual bias that an individual is subject to, and we post as individuals.

It wasn't an accusation. I honestly want to know if you believe a grand jury's ruling to be the end all be all truth even if you had disagreed with the decision prior to the ruling. Can you understand why a grand jury ruling would not change a person's opinion of what the truth is as they see it?

[Blake]

And he was never trained to do that according to his department. Why indeed.

side note, the police union is claiming he was trained to do that at the academy.

[spurraider21]

side note, the police union is claiming he was trained to do that at the academy.

ur being a racist

[FuzzyLumpkins]

side note, the police union is claiming he was trained to do that at the academy.

Have to love secret testimony. Wonder what was shown or not shown to the grand jury. If the department was mum and union reps testified then it is obvious why he was exonerated.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ur being a racist

This is dumb. I have repeatedly said that civil rights should be independent of race in this discussion. If you are getting feelings of guilt regarding being labeled a racist, it isn't coming from me.

[Blake]

Have to love secret testimony. Wonder what was shown or not shown to the grand jury. If the department was mum and union reps testified then it is obvious why he was exonerated.

I can't see any reason for union reps to testify

[spurraider21]

This is dumb. I have repeatedly said that civil rights should be independent of race in this discussion. If you are getting feelings of guilt regarding being labeled a racist, it isn't coming from me.

good thing that quote wasn't directed at you then, huh

[Chomag]

The evidence that seems to be comming out right now seems to point to the death being from the stressful situation and not because he was suffocated. Looks like poor health is what is more likely to have caused the death. Im not saying this is sure fact as I would like more "real" info to be released but im just saying this might have been one of the things that the jury looked at.

[DMC]

It wasn't an accusation. I honestly want to know if you believe a grand jury's ruling to be the end all be all truth even if you had disagreed with the decision prior to the ruling. Can you understand why a grand jury ruling would not change a person's opinion of what the truth is as they see it?

The ruling doesn't change what I think to be right or wrong, only what I think to be legitimate defense to prosecution. You cannot blame the GJ for coming to the decision they did. They are presented with evidence and testimony, even if it's cherry picked by the prosecutor, and there's no defense attorney present for the officer in question. Where's his representation? If every cop went on trial for murder every time a suspect died in custody or during a scuffle, the courts would be tied up with these cases and cops would be even more worthless than they are now because they'd be afraid to act.

[DMC]

Yea, I'm just trying to figure out why that one officer felt compelled to try that chokehold on the suspect. Because he did have backup.

Holy , haven't seen you in a month of Sundays. How have you been?

[DMC]

None of that addresses what I am getting at. Typical GJ has the prosecutor show only what demonstrates probable cause. For example, he could have only showed the video and medical examiners opinion and given a straightforward narrative. In Michael Brown's case he could have only shown the witnesses who said Brown was attempting to surrender and gotten an indictment.

That is not what happened at all. Instead he leaves the GJ in the wind with generalities and ask them to indict for their own reasons instead of reasons the prosecutor puts forth.

Quite frankly, your approach to looking at the proceedings seems naive.

This doesn't make any sense. If you're going to show the GJ only what you want them to see to get an indictment, there should always be an indictment because you can always find someone to support your stance.

I'm curious why anyone here thinks the information they are able to glean on web searches trumps what the GJ was allowed to see and hear.

[boutons_deux]

This doesn't make any sense. If you're going to show the GJ only what you want them to see to get an indictment, there should always be an indictment because you can always find someone to support your stance.

I'm curious why anyone here thinks the information they are able to glean on web searches trumps what the GJ was allowed to see and hear.

There are MANY prosecutors, lawyers, law professors who are saying the Ferguson GJ was a farce by the cop-protecting/compromised exonerator.

A prosecutor DEPENDS on "his" police to obtain the prosecutor's quota, career-padding, crusading convictions.

Prosecutors present to a GJ what they think is enough evidence to convict (not to exonerate), and then it's sorted out in a trial (or plea deal).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This doesn't make any sense. If you're going to show the GJ only what you want them to see to get an indictment, there should always be an indictment because you can always find someone to support your stance.

I'm curious why anyone here thinks the information they are able to glean on web searches trumps what the GJ was allowed to see and hear.

It doesn't make any sense because you don't understand how GJ operate. There is no discovery or full disclosure requirement for a GJ and prosecutors use that advantage all the time by only showing prosecuting arguments, evidence, and witness. Between that at the lower burden of proof, you get comments about how easy it is to indict.

What we got in the Brown case is teh prosecutor looks magnanimous for letting 'everyone' testify but then he only made defense arguments and cross examination. Wilson never had to make a statement or police report nor did he undergo cross. The prosecutor cross examined offense witnesses and questioned their credibility. That is not how GJ are done typically.

[jjktkk]

Did anyone know if this was some sort of ATF sting, or strictly NYPD? Just curious, seeing that the suspected was selling cigarettes.