Andy9o8

Blatant racism right there. And I'm wearing a hoodie.

Have I thanked you yet for for insulting the intelligence of every honest person reading dis thread? Ah! Yez, ah did, ah sho' did dat.

Incorrect. No where is it stated that the "choke hold" was the cause of the neck compression. ...except in the coroner's report, from which that phrase is a direct quote.

http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/boiling-point-big-men-have-feelings-too.php

Under New York law, each Grand Jury is comprised of 23 citizens who hear and examine evidence concerning offenses and take action based on such evidence. At least 16 Grand Jurors must be present for any Grand Jury to hear evidence and take action. Furthermore, at least 12 of the members who have heard the evidence must agree before any affirmative action can be taken. Now whether that qualifies as "plurality" or "majority", it is what it is, and I accept that. Edit: even if Wendy is faster than I am.

You're still repeating the same deliberate lie of omission that I rebutted in post #69. Here, let me help you:

Irrelevant to the incident, and thus it's simple character assassination. (Oh, BTW, in 1980, Garner was 9 years old. FWIW.) I rebutted the significance of this above: legally, "you take your victim as you find him". And as I mentioned above, it took a majority vote of 12 jurors to indict. Hypothetically, even if all 9 non-white jurors argued and voted in favor of indictment, and got 2 white jurors to agree, there would still have been no indictment. Of course, I'm sure we're all curious how many voted to indict or not (although GJ vote breakdowns are usually not released to the public). Also irrelevant to the incident; also nothing more than character assassination.

Now you've gone and hurt my feelings, you meanie. And not just from the irony of your spelling! Don't drop an Anvil on me, Brother!

The coroner also cited "compression of neck (choke hold)" as a causative factor. In fact, he listed it first. You (I'm sure deliberately) omitted that fact. There's a long, long-standing principle of Anglo-American law called "You take your victim [or "plaintiff'] as you find him". By all means, Google it for yourself. But in a nutshell, it means that if you act upon and cause injury to a person who (for whatever reason) is particularly vulnerable to injury, you are still fully responsible for the harm the person has incurred, even if that harm is extra severe in light of his personal vulnerability. Put another way: medically, Garner's obesity and asthma made him very vulnerable; but legally, the choke hold and the other force used against him by police is what caused his death. Yes, yes, I know: his unlawful acts caused his death. But that ignores the principle of proportionality: you don't use potentially deadly force against someone suspected of doing nothing worse than selling loosies. Period. You just don't.

Blatant racism on your part. Is that NOT what he said? Thank you for insulting the intelligence of every honest person reading dis thread. You didn't answer the question. Is that NOT what he said? So you, too, are doubling-down. Excellent.

Soooo, what you're saying is that all cops are racist and only target people of a certain color in order to dole out beatings? It's 2014 and this is how you think? Sooo, you don't get to spin-up what I say to demonize the spun-up version. Sorry, been married too long to fall for that one. What I'm saying is what I said, not what you said I said you said I said. Dear.

Blatant racism on your part. Is that NOT what he said? Thank you for insulting the intelligence of every honest person reading dis thread.

The Stevens system variety certainly was. Been there; did it.

Brilliant. You, too, should run for Congress.

This is what happens when people who are highly-accomplished in one area dabble in another and come up looking amateurish. Clearly, he should run for Congress.

Blatant racism on your part. Not racism but reality. . Doubling down, eh? Ok now say something about watermelon and fried chicken.

Hold your hand in front of you, and contemplate its color. There's your explanation, your 1961 anecdote notwithstanding. Anyone who thinks that the usual reason why black people get their asses kicked by cops is because they're resisting is naive indeed.

Blatant racism on your part.

Don't be naive. I've been in criminal law and justice, at every level, on every side, for over 30 years. Assault on a PO is what the police MUST charge whenever the force they use on a suspect is enough to leave a mark. I can't tell you how many clients I've had tell me or my colleagues how they had the snot beat out of them by cops after they were already handcuffed. If even one-third of those stories were truthful (frankly, I believe about two-thirds were), that's still a massive amount.

Can anyone explain why it had to be intentional murder or nothing? Any ordinary person kills someone with a chokehold for no reason you're getting at least manslaughter. This guy was using excessive force by the NYPDs own standards yet because he didn't mean to kill he's in the clear? What's that about? The GJ did consider manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, each of which are felonies under New York law. The GJ was comprised of 14 white and 9 non-white jurors. Unanimity was not required; a vote of 12 was required to indict. A break-down of this GJ's votes has not been reported. The officer is still potentially subject to departmental disciplinary actions. He is also potentially subject to criminal charges of violating the decedent's civil rights under federal law. (This was a state-level grand jury applying New york law). He also remains subject to being sued civilly by the family.

I remember that, too. "Someone"? If you mean the police, that's not a changed position (nor is it unreasonable). If you mean that suspects being pursued came to that realization, you're making it up. Reductions in third-party injuries and damages due to police pursuits have been the result of evolved police protocols, not because of civilian social engineering.

Sigh. Attaboy, Ron.

I didn't realise they had any F4s combat ready. They must be held together by chewing gum and duct tape by now! same here, those things are antiques now. I was in the last USN F-4 squadron on the east coast. they transitioned to 14's after I got out. This was in 1981. In concept, not entirely unheard of. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

Maybe...but I have to say Iran has to be on the top of the list of countries I would like to visit. I hear the best tour there is called "the Embassy Package".

It's abusive cruelty to the animal.