Indict a Ham sandwich but not a cop

[Danzig]

[quote=Cardus;1007986]

Originally Posted by Danzig

imo, this case is a lot less about race, and a lot more about police using excessive force. this guy died because of a cop opting to use a banned chokehold to take down someone possibly selling 'loosies'. sounds like overzealousness to me. did he pose an imminent threat? no. was he running, resisting arrest? no. did the policeman follow procedure? no.

after years of being allowed to do as they wish, it's no surprise that cops have an overall attitude of 'we can do whatever the hell we wish, when we wish, and you all just deal with it'.[/QUOTE]

This is foolish.

no, it's not.
the lack of indictment against this guy is exactly what i'm talking about. cops are supposed to keep the law, not break it and have no consequences.

[dellinger63]

[quote=Danzig;1008008]

Originally Posted by Cardus

no, it's not.
the lack of indictment against this guy is exactly what i'm talking about. cops are supposed to keep the law, not break it and have no consequences.

Excuse her as she is unable to decipher the difference between policy and law much less separate the two.

She's one of those, who were so eloquently defined, by Gruber.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Excuse her as she is unable to decipher the difference between policy and law much less separate the two.

She's one of those, who were so eloquently defined, by Gruber.

One of "those" that looks at things objectively and takes a position rather than blindly, predictably, incessantly always taking the same position. Give me more of "those".

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cardus

And give me less of people who title a thread "Indict a Ham sandwich but not a cop" without knowing what a grand jury heard and saw.

It escapes me why people make conclusions about legal matters without knowing or understanding the evidence and applicable laws.

I didn't reply to your comment cause it was beyond absurd. When is it necessary to have to read a grand jury testimony before you comment on current events based upon what is in the public domain.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Some of these posts were the same ones made in the immediate aftermath of the Trayvon (sp?) Martin matter, and in the Michael Brown matter, and so on and so on...

i didn't criticize the cops regarding browns shooting, but i did criticize the extreme reaction to the protests. and then, of course, when i defended protests, that meant i was somehow defending looters....
at any rate, i said at the time of the shooting that the story sounded...off...because no cop reaches out his window to try to grab someone and 'drag them inside'. to me, from the get go, it sounded like someone trying to explain why brown was struggling with the cop in his car, while making it seem it wasn't brown who was the instigator.
now, this one tho with the chokehold-whole 'nother ball game. the cop broke the dept rules, and a man is dead.
the police are important, obviously. but they shouldn't be above the laws they're supposed to uphold. and with this latest case, you have to wonder-who is holding them accountable?


and no sooner do i leave here and go to my homepage, than i see this:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...ent/ar-BBgkVkB


People who investigate use-of-force claims admitted they conducted probes with the goal of portraying officers as favorably as possible and some said they used an improperly high, beyond-reasonable-doubt standard, the report said.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

A few points:

If only the video mattered, then the grand jury wasted nine weeks while interviewing numerous witnesses, no?

NYPD has not classified the officer's action as a chokehold. This matters.

of course they're trying to say that the chokehold wasn't a chokehold, else he violated their rules and procedures. the medical examiner rules it a homicide, citing 'compression of the neck'.
as for the cop who did the chokehold, pantaleo...he already cost ny money on another lawsuit, and has another pending.

[jms62]

This won't sell any papers so we barely hear of it

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/s...oting-27362718

[Danzig]

[quote=Cardus;1008011]

Originally Posted by Danzig

What you are "talking about" is that cops have an "overall attitude" that they can do whatever they want.

This notion is just plain wrong.

except it's not.
i lived with a cop, my dad. and knew a lot of his fellow cops, and i know several here. yes, they think their badge means 'omnipotence'. grand juries won't indict, their superiors do nothing.
crime is down significantly, while swat raids have increased from 3k a year to about 50k a year-mostly drug raids. then there's the militarization of the police forces, with even the la school district getting rpg's. rpgs?!?! yes, that's a fact-they got them along with their mraps. it's absurd.