Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Baron Scicluna · Dec 8, 2014

bigpern23 said:

YankeeFan said:

The Big Ragu said:

bigpern23 said:

Garner's guilt or innocence with regard to selling untaxed cigarettes has no bearing on whether the officer should have been indicted on criminal charges. None.
Click to expand...

This too.
Click to expand...

Who has argued anything different?
Click to expand...

Baron, for one, appears to be saying Garner courted death by breaking the law selling untaxed cigarettes.

Mainly, though, I was trying to refocus the discussion where it belongs. There was a tangent developing between you and Ragu about whether Garner was falsely accused or guilty, which does not address the real issue, which is that, with video evidence showing Garner did not pose an imminent threat to officers or bystanders, he was choked to death by an officer of the law who was using a hold that is prohibited by his department.

When that video, and other evidence was presented to a grand jury - which was not instructed to consider reckless endangerment as a possible charge - they decided not to indict that officer on charges of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

It has nothing to do with whether Garner was falsely accused or rightly accused.
Click to expand...

No, I said he courted death by resisting arrest, not selling illegal cigarettes.

I have also indicated that I'm not sorry he is dead because he has been arrested 31 times, for various offenses, and that he should have known after 31 arrests not to resist police.

The Big Ragu · Dec 8, 2014

"The State is not force alone. It depends upon the credulity of man quite as much as upon his docility. Its aim is not merely to make him obey, but also to make him want to obey." -- HL Mencken, apparently describing Baron.
Click to expand...

For what it is worth, I am 99 percent certain that there is nothing illegal about resisting an unlawful arrest in New York State. In fact, you can legally use force to prevent yourself from being unlawfully arrested (for example, the cop has no warrant or probable cause for an arrest). Practically, it might not be the smartest thing to do, and I am not sure if anyone has even tried a case like that recently, but I personally like the small bit of sanity in the world that exists when our societal bent is that we are free people; we don't live under the thumb of the police whom we automatically obey like sheep.

Boom_70 · Dec 8, 2014

The Big Ragu said:

"The State is not force alone. It depends upon the credulity of man quite as much as upon his docility. Its aim is not merely to make him obey, but also to make him want to obey." -- HL Mencken, apparently describing Baron.
Click to expand...

For what it is worth, I am 99 percent certain that there is nothing illegal about resisting an unlawful arrest in New York State. In fact, you can legally use force to prevent yourself from being unlawfully arrested (for example, the cop has no warrant or probable cause for an arrest). Practically, it might not be the smartest thing to do, and I am not sure if anyone has even tried a case like that recently, but I personally like the small bit of sanity in the world that exists when our societal bent is that we are free people; we don't live under the thumb of the police whom we automatically obey like sheep.
Click to expand...

If you are gonna resist probably good to have some witnesses around or wait until
the police have body camera's.

Boom_70 · Dec 8, 2014

Baron Scicluna said:

YankeeFan said:

Eric Garner's neighborhood sounds great.

I can't imagine why the residents would like to see an increased police presence and better enforcement of petty crime:

A rattled Staten Island landlord repeatedly contacted the cops about the nightmare on Bay St.: dope dealers, cigarette peddlers, public urination, threats of rape and assault.

Then Eric Garner, a suspected seller of untaxed cigarettes, died in the midst of his July 17 arrest. A month later, things on the block are even more out of control.

“It has only gotten worse, much worse, since Eric died,” the landlord told the Daily News ahead of Sunday’s one-month anniversary of Garner’s death.

“Now the police, they don’t want to have another incident there so they have a hands-off approach,” said the landlord, who asked not to be identified. “Anyway you slice it, it’s a mess.”

Things certainly didn’t appear any better Friday on the Tompkinsville block where Garner, 43, died after a cop wrapped his neck in a lethal chokehold.

On a bright afternoon in broad daylight, dozens of men and women aimlessly roamed the Bay St. sidewalk. Loiterers stood outside buildings, intimidating the residents and passersby.

One man, sitting in a chair, sold loose cigarettes for 75 cents apiece just feet from the spot where Garner collapsed to the sidewalk, fighting for his last breath.

A visibly drunken woman, clutching a large can tucked inside a paper bag, stumbled through Tompkinsville Park as its denizens watched with disinterest from surrounding benches.

Undercover police in unmarked cars occasionally rolled by. One parked for a while and then drove off. No one was arrested.

“They still sell loose cigarettes, they’re selling drugs, they’re hanging out, fighting,” said Randy Vitucci, 60, a driver for Dejoy’s Red Top cabs.

“It quieted down for a little bit right after the memorial, but then it went right back to business as usual,” the cabbie continued. “These people, most of them, don’t live in the neighborhood. They hang out in the park all day long.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/neighborhood-eric-garner-died-worse-landlord-article-1.1905990

Click to expand...

Landlord and residents should arm themselves with guns. Next time they're on your property, call the police and tell them there are trespassers on your stoop, and that you will need their assistance in removing them, either physically, or their dead bodies.
Click to expand...

The residents should just burn down the house so there is no stoop to stand on.

The Big Ragu · Dec 8, 2014

Boom_70 said:

The Big Ragu said:

"The State is not force alone. It depends upon the credulity of man quite as much as upon his docility. Its aim is not merely to make him obey, but also to make him want to obey." -- HL Mencken, apparently describing Baron.
Click to expand...

For what it is worth, I am 99 percent certain that there is nothing illegal about resisting an unlawful arrest in New York State. In fact, you can legally use force to prevent yourself from being unlawfully arrested (for example, the cop has no warrant or probable cause for an arrest). Practically, it might not be the smartest thing to do, and I am not sure if anyone has even tried a case like that recently, but I personally like the small bit of sanity in the world that exists when our societal bent is that we are free people; we don't live under the thumb of the police whom we automatically obey like sheep.
Click to expand...

If you are gonna resist probably good to have some witnesses around or wait until
the police have body camera's.
Click to expand...

To win that sort of case wouldn't be a matter of a witnesses of the actual arrest. If I am correct, it doesn't matter how you resisted, because the attempted arrest itself wasn't legal. It's a matter of the cop not being able to prove probable cause for the arrest in the first place. Cases get thrown out all the time over probable cause. This would have to be one of those cases, combined with a separate resisting arrest charge. How it gets handled in practice could be a crap shoot. If you had a cop with a broken jaw. ... you could end up right on the law, but wrong in the eyes of the police, a prosecutor and a sympathetic judge.

But I doubt they actually prosecute any resisting arrest cases when the original charge gets thrown out over probable cause, which is why this never comes up. One of the things the cops have complained about in recent years is that they don't prosecute enough resisting arrest cases -- period. Even when the arrest was made WITH probable cause. The cops claim that their accused perps know the deal so they aren't afraid to resist. i.e. -- there is no consequence.

Boom_70 · Dec 8, 2014

The Big Ragu said:

Boom_70 said:

The Big Ragu said:

"The State is not force alone. It depends upon the credulity of man quite as much as upon his docility. Its aim is not merely to make him obey, but also to make him want to obey." -- HL Mencken, apparently describing Baron.
Click to expand...

For what it is worth, I am 99 percent certain that there is nothing illegal about resisting an unlawful arrest in New York State. In fact, you can legally use force to prevent yourself from being unlawfully arrested (for example, the cop has no warrant or probable cause for an arrest). Practically, it might not be the smartest thing to do, and I am not sure if anyone has even tried a case like that recently, but I personally like the small bit of sanity in the world that exists when our societal bent is that we are free people; we don't live under the thumb of the police whom we automatically obey like sheep.
Click to expand...

If you are gonna resist probably good to have some witnesses around or wait until
the police have body camera's.
Click to expand...

To win that sort of case wouldn't be a matter of a witnesses of the actual arrest. If I am correct, it doesn't matter how you resisted, because the attempted arrest itself wasn't legal. It's a matter of the cop not being able to prove probable cause for the arrest in the first place. Cases get thrown out all the time over probable cause. This would have to be one of those cases, combined with a separate resisting arrest charge. How it gets handled in practice could be a crap shoot. If you had a cop with a broken jaw. ... you could end up right on the law, but wrong in the eyes of the police, a prosecutor and a sympathetic judge.

But I doubt they actually prosecute any resisting arrest cases when the original charge gets thrown out over probable cause, which is why this never comes up. One of the things the cops have complained about in recent years is that they don't prosecute enough resisting arrest cases -- period. Even when the arrest was made WITH probable cause. The cops claim that their accused perps know the deal so they aren't afraid to resist. i.e. -- there is no consequence.
Click to expand...

Without witnesses I would be worried about the police creating probable
cause after the fact by perhaps placing drugs in the glove compartment
of your car. Then they got ya. They'll drop the drug charge in return for
accepting lesser offense of resiting arrest.

Boom_70 · Dec 8, 2014

Justice from Chinese police makes NYPD look tame in comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6zIIe5Ob6M&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dk6zIIe5Ob6M&has_verified=1

YankeeFan · Dec 8, 2014

Ragu, I think you and Baron will both appreciate this segment from a recent This American Life episode about people who refuse to cooperate with Border Patrol Guards working inland check points:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a-front?act=2

Debbie Nathan: I had to go through the checkpoints a lot on Interstate 10 or I-25. And I dutifully complied. I didn't joke around. I answered their questions. If they asked to look in the trunk, I popped the latch. I treated checkpoints like TSA screening at the airport. And then, about a year ago, I ran across this video on YouTube that made the checkpoints seem less like serious law enforcement and more like the sitcom Reno 911. It started with a guy in a red polo shirt filming himself as he rolls up to a checkpoint on Interstate 8 in California.

Motorist: What's up, man?

Border Patrol Agent: How you doing today, sir?

Motorist: Good.

Border Patrol Agent: Are you a US citizen?

Motorist: That's my business.

Border Patrol Agent: Well, it's our business to ask. Are you a US citizen or not?

Motorist: You can ask. That's fine.

Border Patrol Agent: And you have to answer me, or I'll have to detain you until you can either tell me that you're a US citizen.

Motorist: Well, I don't have to answer you, because I have rights as an American.

Border Patrol Agent: Sir, go ahead and pull over there behind that other vehicle, if you'd do me a favor.

Motorist Nah, no thanks.

Debbie Nathan: The video was called Top DHS Checkpoint Refusals. DHS, of course, stands for Department of Homeland Security, under which US Customs and Border Protection operates. Refusals means just what it says. I watched as one driver after another approached the border agents, greeted them politely, and then proceeded to be 100% uncooperative.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/transcript

poindexter · Dec 8, 2014

YankeeFan said:

Ragu, I think you and Baron will both appreciate this segment from a recent This American Life episode about people who refuse to cooperate with Border Patrol Guards working inland check points:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a-front?act=2

Debbie Nathan: I had to go through the checkpoints a lot on Interstate 10 or I-25. And I dutifully complied. I didn't joke around. I answered their questions. If they asked to look in the trunk, I popped the latch. I treated checkpoints like TSA screening at the airport. And then, about a year ago, I ran across this video on YouTube that made the checkpoints seem less like serious law enforcement and more like the sitcom Reno 911. It started with a guy in a red polo shirt filming himself as he rolls up to a checkpoint on Interstate 8 in California.

Motorist: What's up, man?

Border Patrol Agent: How you doing today, sir?

Motorist: Good.

Border Patrol Agent: Are you a US citizen?

Motorist: That's my business.

Border Patrol Agent: Well, it's our business to ask. Are you a US citizen or not?

Motorist: You can ask. That's fine.

Border Patrol Agent: And you have to answer me, or I'll have to detain you until you can either tell me that you're a US citizen.

Motorist: Well, I don't have to answer you, because I have rights as an American.

Border Patrol Agent: Sir, go ahead and pull over there behind that other vehicle, if you'd do me a favor.

Motorist Nah, no thanks.

Debbie Nathan: The video was called Top DHS Checkpoint Refusals. DHS, of course, stands for Department of Homeland Security, under which US Customs and Border Protection operates. Refusals means just what it says. I watched as one driver after another approached the border agents, greeted them politely, and then proceeded to be 100% uncooperative.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/transcript
Click to expand...

That was a great episode.

The Big Ragu · Dec 8, 2014

YankeeFan said:

Ragu, I think you and Baron will both appreciate this segment from a recent This American Life episode about people who refuse to cooperate with Border Patrol Guards working inland check points:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a-front?act=2

Debbie Nathan: I had to go through the checkpoints a lot on Interstate 10 or I-25. And I dutifully complied. I didn't joke around. I answered their questions. If they asked to look in the trunk, I popped the latch. I treated checkpoints like TSA screening at the airport. And then, about a year ago, I ran across this video on YouTube that made the checkpoints seem less like serious law enforcement and more like the sitcom Reno 911. It started with a guy in a red polo shirt filming himself as he rolls up to a checkpoint on Interstate 8 in California.

Motorist: What's up, man?

Border Patrol Agent: How you doing today, sir?

Motorist: Good.

Border Patrol Agent: Are you a US citizen?

Motorist: That's my business.

Border Patrol Agent: Well, it's our business to ask. Are you a US citizen or not?

Motorist: You can ask. That's fine.

Border Patrol Agent: And you have to answer me, or I'll have to detain you until you can either tell me that you're a US citizen.

Motorist: Well, I don't have to answer you, because I have rights as an American.

Border Patrol Agent: Sir, go ahead and pull over there behind that other vehicle, if you'd do me a favor.

Motorist Nah, no thanks.

Debbie Nathan: The video was called Top DHS Checkpoint Refusals. DHS, of course, stands for Department of Homeland Security, under which US Customs and Border Protection operates. Refusals means just what it says. I watched as one driver after another approached the border agents, greeted them politely, and then proceeded to be 100% uncooperative.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/transcript
Click to expand...

I can't read all of that right now. ... but yeah. I have never dealt with one of those checkpoints, but the same holds true for drinking & driving checkpoints. They can ask you anything they want. You don't have to answer -- you have to provide your license and registration. If they do the "pull over behind that area" thing, you can simply ask "Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" If they are detaining you, they had better have probable cause -- something a checkpoint, which stops everyone regardless of whether they were observed breaking a law, can't satisfy. If they aren't detaining you, they have to let you go on your way. If they do detain you, you still don't have to answer their questions, and you have a right to an attorney.

old_tony · Dec 8, 2014

The Big Ragu said:

YankeeFan said:

The Big Ragu said:

Sorry if the stereotype bothered you, YF. Apparently it detracted from the point you aren't addressing. We live in a free society. When someone in law enforcement gets handed a badge and a gun to do his or her job, it doesn't give them authority at their discretion (whether they have a GED or 20 advanced degrees from Cambridge, if you know that cop) to decide who is bad and play judge and jury and dispense instant justice as they see fit.

And if you don't understand why I have taken pains to point that out, go back through this thread and look at all of the posts about how Eric Garner was a "criminal," therefore what happened to him is somehow more justifiable than if it had happened to someone who wasn't a criminal.

I found that sentiment horrifying on the face of it.

But it's also just wrong. At the moment of his death, Eric Garner was about to be ACCUSED of something by the cops (the kind of crime that would have gotten me a summons at worst, not 5 cops taking me down, but that is an entirely other story).

If you are ever falsely accused of something, you'll likely come to an instant understanding about the difference between the cops treating you like "the accused," who has rights. ... and the cops treating you like a "criminal." We should all be vigilant about making sure everyone gets treated like the first -- whether it's Eric Garner or your dear sweet grandmother. When you treat the person think is the worst that way, it is what ensures that YOU will be treated that way, too.
Click to expand...

I'm just not sure why you couldn't make your broader point without the denigrating -- and patently false, in regards to the NYPD -- stereotype.
Click to expand...

I haven't denigrated anyone. And the thing you are harping on isn't "patently false."

You are harping on something meaningless. The point was that Joe Cop wasn't born endowed with the wisdom of Solomon and the benevolence of Samuel. Which is why I used the extreme of the knucklehead with his GED and a badge -- and I wasn't being ridiculous because I have met that guy multiple times. 60 unspecified college credits, since you are so hung up on it, isn't necessarily a degree of any sort. It's well short of a bachelors and it is an associates at best. Which is why, yeah, there are cops on the force whose highest degree is their GED. I'd go out and find you one, if it wasn't such a stupid thing for you to be so hung up on -- other than to ignore my post and make it about something dumb.
Click to expand...

What's that line about being in a hole and ceasing to dig?

old_tony · Dec 8, 2014

YankeeFan said:

cranberry said:

My one conclusion so far is that local prosecutors should NEVER be involved in cases involving potentially criminal cops. The cases need to be handled at arm's length to ensure integrity of the process and the public's continued faith in the process.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a bad idea at all.
Click to expand...

Problem is, when the non-local prosecutor reaches the same conclusion a few times in a row ...

Log in or Sign up

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

poindexter Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

YankeeFan Well-Known Member

poindexter Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches