Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indict

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

You don't have a clue about that, you really don't. Even criminals care about their family.

My parents were involved in prison ministry for almost 3 decades. I attended many services with them during that time and talked with the men in that prison. We also had 2 men live with us for a while after their release.

That kind of statement is made in either arrogance or ignorance. Either way, it's completely wrong.

Yes, because you have been everywhere, know everything. Next you will say you are Santa Clause. Well, in that case, I'd like you to deliver this to me for Christmas, please. I am not on the naughty list this year.


Bentley Mulsanne

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I believe he should be tried for negligence

Why? This whole discussion, you've been defending the cop, the "takedown" move and the cops in general; all while blaming the alleged suspect and his preex conditions for contributing to his demise.

This is only a small sample of what you posted in defense of what I stated above. There are many more posts which have the same kind of defense.

So why the apparent flip flop? Why now, after all the defending, do you post that he should be tried for negligence? Look at your posts below, they're not indicative of one who believes the cop should be tried for negligence.

Do you believe the cop was negligent? The statement would suggest so, but I'd like you to answer. What did the cop do which you believe was negligent?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

GThis cop did not cause his death. There was some other cops. The head hold did not damage his air pipe. He was not "unable to breath" until he was on his chest and someone was on his back

The cop did not assault him. He was placed under arrest and resisted

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Once again that cop did not kill him. The contributing factors include being placed on his stomach and having someone stick their knee on his back and press down. That is VERY common for a take down arrest when someone resists.

Why is one cop being singled out and the rest given immunity? Something is not right. The autopsy does not pin the death solely on the "chokehold" and so please explain why he is the killer and the other cops are not?

Please make sense of that. There was no damage to his windpipe. He did not suffocate to death

He went into Cardiac arrest. that could have happened to anyone with a bad heart

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Repeating. It was a legal hold, not an illegal chokehold. The man died from cardiac arrest not asphyxia

The cop that used the head hold was NOT the cop that approached the man

So WHY was only that cop the one that was to be indicted or not? Why is he the scape goat?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He did not CHOKE him. You can remain ignorant by not reading all the information I have given you but he did not CHOKE the man. He put him in a head restraint and his windpipe showed NO damage. He was not having his breathing cut off from this move

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But it was NOT a choke hold. It was a head lock. He had one arm under the other guys arm

Stress is not murder. Ok? He was resisting arrest. That is what they do, when you resist, they take you down. That is their training. That is what the GJ probably concluded

Incredible that after all that, you and I agree the cop should be tried for negligence.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, because you have been everywhere, know everything. Next you will say you are Santa Clause. Well, in that case, I'd like you to deliver this to me for Christmas, please. I am not on the naughty list this year.

You're not worth it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I questioned it at first...I was going by the video. But then I started using my brain, read up on the topic some, listened to everyone involved and I came to my conclusions

BTW if this cop was charged with something else like negligence, maybe the verdict would be different

I said this on the 8th. Use your brain not your emotions. Stop trying to twist my wordz

I never flip flopped. Stop the lies

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I said this on the 8th. Use your brain not your emotions. Stop trying to twist my wordz

I never flip flopped. Stop the lies

Then you need to see a psychologist for multiple personality disorder.

You defended the cops and their methods post after post, then you suddenly post that he should be tried for negligence.

Why should he be tried for negligence? What do you believe the cop did which was negligent?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I questioned it at first...I was going by the video. But then I started using my brain, read up on the topic some, listened to everyone involved and I came to my conclusions

BTW if this cop was charged with something else like negligence, maybe the verdict would be different

"If this cop was charged with something else like negligence, maybe the verdict would be different."

Sorry, where is the part where you say the cop should be tried for negligence? That sentence suggesting a verdict may have been different if charged with something like negligence is NOT the same as you stating he should be tried for negligence.

Do you understand at all, or are you so upset with me that it has blinded you to reject anything I have to say?

Let's say I'm someone else and I offer the same shock and question, what would you say? You didn't say he should be tried for negligence until today.

And let's pretend the above statement from the 8th really did say he should be tried for negligence....why go on and defend the cop and his methods post after post if you really believed he was negligent?

[n david]

This

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW if this cop was charged with something else like negligence, maybe the verdict would be different

does not equal this

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I believe he should be tried for negligence

[n david]

Fine, you say you didn't flip flop. I still don't believe you said that on the 8th, but whatever.

Why do you believe the cop was negligent?

What did he do which causes you to believe he should be tried for negligence?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by n david

Fine, you say you didn't flip flop. I still don't believe you said that on the 8th, but whatever.

Why do you believe the cop was negligent?

What did he do which causes you to believe he should be tried for negligence?

Fyi, I felt it was a flip flop too. But with prax denying that, I'm sure I must have misread some of the past posts he made on that topic.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Fyi, I felt it was a flip flop too. But with prax denying that, I'm sure I must have misread some of the past posts he made on that topic.

I didn't view it as a flip-flop. Prax was speaking to the police officer as not being charged with negligence. That has nothing to do with Prax's opinion on the matter. I don't see how that can be viewed as a flip-flop.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't have time to go back and review some of your questionable posts. You'll have to pout over the holidays.

Wasn't there a post or two where a few members here pointed out you seemed like you were acting like a racist? Something in the back of mine mind on that. Don't have time to verify at the moment.

You've done your share of hammering back on threads, so don' get all balled up about it.

I'm not all balled up, I am letting you know that your accusations are false and that you have seriously offended me.

I am letting you know that you have offended me.

Your statements about me wanting to kill Americans and your statements or implications that I am racist are LIES.

And say whatever else you want to say about me Pressing On, just remember me when I am confronted with doing somebody wrong, I know how to apologize.

This black guy who attended UPCI churches for over 12 years and now an A/G church for 2 or 3 years is not a racist.

And of course, I don't want to kill Americans.