Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ferguson MO 2.0 - No indictment in Eric Garner case...

I said MORE facts, akin to what the Grand Jury gets. That's a helluva lot more facts than a short video and a schitload of conjecture.

If you have a better system, feel free to have it instituted as a means of determining guilt and innocence. In a few centuries, none have bested the system we currently have, and guessing from a video and media reports sure as Hell ain't going to top it.

I see with still frame pics and pithy comments you have got it all figured out mister "naught but the facts"

Current Teacher's License?

I think you need to reread mathman's brief statement on postural-respiratory issues.

Surely with your Pa being an internist, and all the pasta eaters on the island, this type of situation is not all that uncommon.

Coincidence he became hypoxic and suffered an arrest - no, I think it had something to do with the cops rolling his ass. Which in turn had something to do with him resisting arrest.

Was it for a bullshit charge? Debatable IMO. So why did he resist?

There are several things that really stand out as constants here. In the Garner case, as well as the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case, each of the individuals was a seasoned criminal, and was engaged in criminal acts at the time of their demise.
In all three cases, the individual was aggressive, and was combative.
Most important to me, is that in all three cases, there was a seminal event, that was seized upon by the media, and that morphed into a meme.
With Trayvon Martin, that was 'stand your ground', even though that was not even part of Zimmerman's defense.
With Michael Brown, it was 'hands up, don't shoot', and with Garner, it was 'illegal choke hold'.
In all three cases, the meme was constructed out of whole cloth, and not based in fact.
The media has made all three of these cases, symbolic of police excess. Those white folks eaten up with white guilt, and the entire black community have embraced these eponymous events as symptomatic of something wrong with the interface between police and public, instead of showing that something is wrong with the behavior of black youths.

Bull's eye.

the main thing all this tells the observer, is that someone, or some entity, is coordinating, orchestrating and promoting these 'responses'. There is just way too much similarity and consistency of behavior and rhetoric, for these protests to be random.
These events are being used to galvanize blacks, and to herd them into 'useful' behavior.

There is a contingent that wants a race war, and possibly with the blacks siding with the muslims and socialists. This is part of how the empire falls, from within.

I've noticed now that Ferguson 1.0 is passing its cycle, our local "news" station has stopped calling Michael Brown the "unarmed black youth".

There is something surreal going on. As you say, each story cycles past, rivets the attention of the Country, and then we are presented with yet another heart rending story of police abuse, and another poor, spiritual, honest, 'good guy' black that goes down.
Damn, we don't have time to pay attention to what is REALLY happening, do we?

You don't say?

Of course a prosecutor is more trust worthy than my lying eyes.
Everyone knows lawyers are to be unquestionably trusted, and a prosecutor would present only a correct narrative with complete facts for Grand Juries consideration. Got it.

I�m also quite glad to have your permission for instituting a better system. Do I just tell them you approved and it�s good to go, or is this possibly you adding more nonsense to your gibberish?

It got even better with this internet thing.

Folks can search out whatever enrages them, unvetted, post it and really dress it up to the hilt in order to get the fires started, then sit back and watch or fan it some more.

Like a video of some wannabe clinic bombing homicidal MF'er being foisted on us as some sort of beacon of oppression.

Meanwhile, back at the capitol building...

And how easy the police force makes it for them. It's not like one could foster that sentiment over night.

Very good post. It's obvious Mr. Gardner was breaking the law and had he complied, we wouldn't be discussing this.

That said, the choke hold, while not illegal was (is) against NYPD standing orders and the Black Female sergeant and senior ranking officer present at the scene, failed to control her officers by ordering the officer to immediately cease. In my opinion, given what *I* saw in the video, and of course taking into account recent events, were I the prosecutor, I would have sent this to trial, even if I KNEW I was going to lose, for the simple reason the coroner ruled the death a homicide. BTW, Mr. Gardner died of a myocardial infarction with the choke hold as the catalyst, hence the homicide label.

there is some disagreement about what actually constitutes a 'choke hold'. I have done some training with holds, and what I see is not really what I would call a 'choke'.
I am not convinced that the hold was the catalyst for his demise. Of course, I am not privy to all the reams of Grand Jury testimony either.
Like in the Ferguson case, a Grand Jury went over a lot of info. In both cases, it should have been a slam dunk to get an indictment. Based on evidence, not just a video, both Grand Juries declined to indict.
That should carry some weight. Going to trial just to satisfy a mob is not a good idea.

Sounds a lot like a lynching, doesn't it?

There is also a political party that knows they can't run a black candidate in 2016 and need the black vote to put a white aristocrat in office.

Hang on. Wasn't the case presented to the grand jury by a prosecutor? You know, the "ham sandwich" guy?

You have half a dozen guys saying to look at the big picture, and how folks are being manipulated, and DickAustin comes up with that statement.

I facepalmed so friggin hard, I'm surprised you didn't feel it.

There are plenty of police excesses and abuses to go nuts over, but unless the person is black, nobody says much. "Black lives matter." This is because white ones don't. Diabetics being tazed and beaten because they are too out of it to follow orders. Kids being shot on no-knock dope raids...Mentally handicapped adult children being beaten to death calling for their fathers...Did we whites riot over these incidents? Where are all the middle-eastern looking dudes and angry white chicks with megaphones yelling all the catchy slogans? Where is the effing government? Where is Zero encouraging "protests"?

The contrast and double standards here are stark and the hypocrisy blatant. The MSM didn't GAF about the other incidents which were much more egregious. Instead we are presented with three incidents where people were engaged in criminal activities.

The catch phrase shouldn't be "Black lives matter," but rather "Criminal lives matter,".

RichardAustin and others,

The grand jury didn't have to just sit there and listen to the Prosecutor. They were able to question the witnesses. They were able to request the production of witnesses and physical evidence; and the Prosecutor was required to produce it if it was admissible under the rules of evidence.

Maybe, just maybe, the group of people who made up the grand jury asked a lot of questions of various witnesses. Maybe they requested the testimony of real experts in law enforcement training methods and techniques. Maybe they heard from more than one pathologist. Maybe they asked for testimony from an expert in the field of cardiology. I don't know, and neither do you.

What I do know is that a reasonably large group of people were sworn as a grand jury. They reviewed all physical evidence that the Prosecutor wanted to show them, plus any other admissible evidence that they asked for. They heard from any witnesses the Prosecutor called, plus any other witnesses, requested by them, whose testimony would be relevant and admissible. After reviewing all of the evidence, that group of citizens collectively determined that there was not reasonable cause to charge anyone with a crime in this death. In other words, it would be unreasonable to charge someone.

Do you guys really want a criminal justice system, in this country, that would expose you, or a fellow citizen, to loss of life or freedom, even though a grand jury of your peers made a finding that it would be unreasonable for the government to put you on trial?