Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indict

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

David, You do realize that the Grand Jury sat and looked at the "full" evidence before them and weighed that against the law?

Uhm, no. The Grand Jury looked at the evidence which the Prosecutor (who works daily with the NYPD) wanted them to see. Not only that, but they heard 2 hours of testimony from the DEFENSE attorney, something which is typically not allowed in Grand Jury proceedings. No wonder the overwhelming majority of grand jury cases against police go unprosecuted. It's a stacked deck. The Prosecutor gives as little evidence as he wants, since he works with the police dept on a daily basis; and the defense doesn't have to worry about the case going to court.

You all want to compare this to Ferguson, well the Defense never stood before the Grand Jury and the Prosecutor truly did allow all evidence to be shown there. Not the same in Garner's case.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Eastman, a guy that is about to be arrested and doesn't want to be is going to act agitated and proclaim his innocence. Ever heard the saying that "no one in jail is guilty"? It's because those who commit crimes like to proclaim there innocence even though they are as guilty as can be.

Heck, it wasn't even the first time the guy had resisted arrest. Didn't you read his prior sheet? Do you suppose that every time he resisted arrest that he was innocent? Do you suppose that every time someone resists arrest that they are innocent?

And as to the cops planting evidence.... sure it happens. It didn't happen here though. How can you believe the guy was arrested for selling loosies 8 times prior and somehow wasn't actually doing the same thing this time? That's beyond me. Or do you think all 8 times the cops planted evidence on the guy?

Last point, no one can argue with conspiracy theories....

I guess innocent until proven guilty isn't in your argument either is it?

[BrotherEastman]

I guess we'll never know since Garner didn't have a trial.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

I posted two links and there are others which state the coroner claimed the primary cause due to compression of the neck and chest. You ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative or belief that Garner just died cause he was fat and had preexisting conditions.

I read them! Did you read any of my links? Any? Ive posted several on the topic of whether it was a chokehold or not and other issues and I get the feeling that you have not bothered.

Im quoting..AGAIN

Eric Garner, a black man whose confrontation with a white police officer has prompted calls by the Rev. Al Sharpton for federal prosecution, was killed by neck compressions from the chokehold and "the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," city medical examiner spokeswoman Julie Bolcer said.


Asthma, heart disease and obesity were contributing factors in the death of the 43-year-old Garner, a 6-foot-3, 350-pound father of six, she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5642481.html

Ok...did you see it that time?

True, but the coroner wrote compression of the NECK and CHEST. How does one get compression of the NECK, anyway?

Once again you are pretending I denied the compression of the neck was a contributing factor. Once again you show that you are unable to read what I write objectively

Is anyone else seeing this? That is the 4th time David has done that and he claims he is not being emotional. What is next when someone is dishonest about what others say?

The video is at odds with your claim, as is the picture I posted several posts back. It clearly shows the arm under his chin, around his throat.

Thats not what I said LOL...Mr Emotional. Read what I said. I said ONE arm was under Eric's arm. the OTHER was around the neck. That is a RESTRAINT used to subdue someone. The Compresion was not around the wind pipe. It was around the neck. sheeeesh

WOW. that's 5 times now you have ignored what I said and inserted your own made up version

Pay attention. This is what I have BEEN saying for days

3 factors contributed to Eric's death.

The compression around the neck.

Being on his stomach with someone on his back

AND

Preexisting Medical conditions

It was NOT an illegal Chokehold. It was a submission moved in two respects. One was the arm bar, to get leverage and bring him down. The other is pressure on the artery. That second part is an MMA move and cops all across America use it around the neck putting pressure on the artery NOT on the wind pipe

That has been what I have been saying David and for some reason you have come along and changed it. You need to ask yourself why because I've already formed my opinion.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I guess cops don't lie or plant evidence either eh? Why would someone who has complied with the law officers for the "previous" arrests all of the sudden decide not to this one time unless he was of course really innocent this time?

See? You did it again. That is an emotional response. Nobody denies there are bad cops

BTW How do you know he complied? being Really innocent THIS time? If he really was innocent THIS time, why fight with the police? Most of us are smart enough to know if you are combative with the police it's not going to end good

BTW Lots of people who are NOT innocent have the same behavior of combativeness and then resisting arrest

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

Uhm, no. The Grand Jury looked at the evidence which the Prosecutor (who works daily with the NYPD) wanted them to see. Not only that, but they heard 2 hours of testimony from the DEFENSE attorney, something which is typically not allowed in Grand Jury proceedings. No wonder the overwhelming majority of grand jury cases against police go unprosecuted. It's a stacked deck. The Prosecutor gives as little evidence as he wants, since he works with the police dept on a daily basis; and the defense doesn't have to worry about the case going to court.

You all want to compare this to Ferguson, well the Defense never stood before the Grand Jury and the Prosecutor truly did allow all evidence to be shown there. Not the same in Garner's case.

How do you know what the prosecutor did or did not do? You have not seen all the evidence

Also the reason why the cop testified most likely is the case hinged on one factor, intent

You can't try crimes based on emotion as everyone does through the media and as you are. You have to go by the facts.

Same thing happened in the Trayvon Martin case. Even some of the Jurors commented later their feelings that were similar to all the angry mobs, BUT based purely on evidence they had to acquit

That's why these things dont go to trial because the GJ does not believe they can get a conviction.

Why? Again you have to show INTENT and because his preexisting condition was a contributing factor the police was unaware of, the police was not INTENDING to cause harm but simply subdue

Again if you read anything I posted it corroborates the following

It was NOT an illegal chokehold. It was a move taught at the academy to subdue combative people resisting arrest

His preexisting condition was a contributing factor. In other words, had this been anyone else without the health problems, we would not be having this discussion. And I have made that point before. This happens a lot where the police subdue someone and MIXED with a preexisting condition something bad goes down.

The Police dont make the laws NOR set police policy. If you want to be angry, be angry at the Police chief and whoever made these dumb laws

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I guess innocent until proven guilty isn't in your argument either is it?

And you assume guilty after proven innocent? The cop that "choked" the guy never faced an actual trial because the preliminary grand jury didn't feel there was enough of a case to even go to trial. That you disregard that is you assuming guilt after innocence has been declared.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I guess innocent until proven guilty isn't in your argument either is it?

Is it YOURS? Hmmm? You all are so sure he is guilty

BTW it's Innocent till proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

Uhm, no. The Grand Jury looked at the evidence which the Prosecutor (who works daily with the NYPD) wanted them to see. Not only that, but they heard 2 hours of testimony from the DEFENSE attorney, something which is typically not allowed in Grand Jury proceedings. No wonder the overwhelming majority of grand jury cases against police go unprosecuted. It's a stacked deck. The Prosecutor gives as little evidence as he wants, since he works with the police dept on a daily basis; and the defense doesn't have to worry about the case going to court.

You all want to compare this to Ferguson, well the Defense never stood before the Grand Jury and the Prosecutor truly did allow all evidence to be shown there. Not the same in Garner's case.

You may want to say this case and the Michael Brown case are not the same but your argument IS...

Those that disagreed with the GJ report in that case made the same excuse about the prosecutor and the GJ

Prosecutors don't usually present ALL the evidence. They present the evidence they feel is necessary to convince, not also acquit.

[Pressing-On]

I received my letter, today, from the District Judge thanking me for my service on the jury. It is a good letter because it expresses the importance of our service as citizens, whether on a trial jury or Grand Jury.

Dear,

While your recent jury service in the District Court of _________ is fresh on your mind, I want to do two things.

First, thank you for your service. This thanks is not extended lightly. Jury service can be frustrating, enjoyable, or disappointing. One thing which it rarely is, I am told, is forgettable. It is my hope that your particular service will provide a lasting memory from which you can draw personal pride

And, secondly, now that you have experienced jury service. I ask you to encourage your family, friends, and neighbors to serve when they are summoned. The quality of justice must ultimately rest upon the quality of those who must administer it. Jury service is tremendously important, and should therefore demand the attention of the best of society. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

I can only feel, like we did, that the jurors serving to determine probable cause for Michael Brown and Eric Garner took their jobs very seriously.