Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 12:37:00 PM (view original):
It should be noted that Newsday leans liberal.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 11:08:00 AM (view original):
I looked up these yesterday.  Based on the definitions of these crimes, I don't understand how it at least doesn't go to trial.

S 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.   A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.  Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony.   S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.   A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:   1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or   2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death, unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05 or   3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.  Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

I'm guessing the laws work a little differently for cops.     He was detaining a suspect.   You or I would just be choking some random dude out.    I drive past a guy walking in the middle of the road and tell him to get his *** out of the road.   A struggle ensues.   I'm looked at as the aggressor.   Not so much with a cop.

Cops should be held to a higher standard in their use of force since they're the ones with the power and the weapons.

Cops are also the ones on the front lines dealing with the often violent scum of society.

Random citizen A putting random citizen B in a choke hold is quite different from police officer C putting criminal suspect D in a choke hold.

I guess I'll post it again - 

Yes, laws are somewhat different when it comes to cops, because of the nature of their job.  If this was anyone else, they'd be going to trial for murder or 1st degree manslaughter, because you can't just put someone in a chokehold and bring them to the ground for no reason. Because it's a cop, criminally negligent homicide makes the most sense, in my opinion. Generally when someone tells you that they're having trouble with a normal life function, like breathing, that you shouldn't continue to do what you're doing. Or when it appears that they're dying after you didn't stop suffocating this person, to try to bring them back to life sooner than 7 minutes later. It sounds like there's a great chance he was negligent. Not going to trial seems insane.

I think Ferguson kinda told us how it works.   DA doesn't think he can get a conviction.    Officer is not indicted.  

Same thing happens in NY.

Pretty much end of story.   Except for the libs complaining that there should have been a trial because they interpret the law differently.
 

This was posted by a friend of mine on Facebook last night, which may shed a little bit of light on the NYC ruling yesterday:

"Let me explain to you what happened in New York City today. In the five boroughs, the prosecutor is allowed only a "single presentment"; he is only allowed to present ONE possible charge to the jury. It is different here in PA, the DA is allowed to attach a gamut of charges for the jury to consider, essentially, throw it all out there and see what sticks. In the NY grand jury, however, they are presented only the charge that the DA thinks is most likely to stick. I will guess that he presented a bill for 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter with 'depraved indifference'. Both charges have a very high bar to clear in NY, and there MUST be enough evidence to prove the charge before it can go to trial. By NY law, there was no 'murder' (remember, the bar is VERY high); there might have been depraved indifference, but to determine that, you'd need to be in the cop's head. Again, depraved indifference will be true billed perhaps one out of twenty presentments. What is unfortunate is that the DA did not present for Involuntary Manslaughter, which is proved by the video in no uncertain terms...but the jury would never have had the option, since it wasn't presented. Here in PA, this would have been a slam-dunk; in NY, due to the twisted system, a killer is going to walk. Oh, the DA cannot pass a lesser charge to another Grand Jury without 'compelling new evidence', so a man died who should not have, and nobody will pay the price for it."

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Read an article in Al Jazeera America a few days ago.   It explained why cops are seldom indicted and, even when they, are seldom convicted.  And, even when convicted, how the punishment is almost certainly nothing more than suspension/probation.   

Wish I could find it again.   You might learn something.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/4/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

This was posted by a friend of mine on Facebook last night, which may shed a little bit of light on the NYC ruling yesterday:

"Let me explain to you what happened in New York City today. In the five boroughs, the prosecutor is allowed only a "single presentment"; he is only allowed to present ONE possible charge to the jury. It is different here in PA, the DA is allowed to attach a gamut of charges for the jury to consider, essentially, throw it all out there and see what sticks. In the NY grand jury, however, they are presented only the charge that the DA thinks is most likely to stick. I will guess that he presented a bill for 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter with 'depraved indifference'. Both charges have a very high bar to clear in NY, and there MUST be enough evidence to prove the charge before it can go to trial. By NY law, there was no 'murder' (remember, the bar is VERY high); there might have been depraved indifference, but to determine that, you'd need to be in the cop's head. Again, depraved indifference will be true billed perhaps one out of twenty presentments. What is unfortunate is that the DA did not present for Involuntary Manslaughter, which is proved by the video in no uncertain terms...but the jury would never have had the option, since it wasn't presented. Here in PA, this would have been a slam-dunk; in NY, due to the twisted system, a killer is going to walk. Oh, the DA cannot pass a lesser charge to another Grand Jury without 'compelling new evidence', so a man died who should not have, and nobody will pay the price for it."

"The grand jury votes on a menu of charges for each potential defendant. The list of charges is decided solely by the D.A. The list of possible defendants is also decided solely by prosecutors.

In this case, the possible charges have not been announced but prosecutors who do this work tell us the range is going to include: second-degree manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, felony assault, reckless endangerment. Prosecutors could ask for first-degree manslaughter, but doubtful they could get it.

As the list of charges is considered by the grand jury, questions could arise about facts of the case and how they should be considered. The grand jury could seek more information or additional witnesses. They are in total control."

"A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich," the famous saying goes. But according to several legal experts, a Staten Island grand jury's decision not to indict officer Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner was likely prompted by the prosecutor, Richmond County District Attorney Daniel Donovan, Jr. "There is no question that a grand jury will do precisely what the prosecutor wants, virtually 100% of the time," says James Cohen, a law professor at Fordham University who specializes in criminal procedure. "This was, as was the case in Missouri, orchestrated by the prosecutor."

While most legal experts believed that the grand jury did not have enough evidence to prove a murder charge, the grand jury could have charged Pantaleo with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

"In this case, you had videotape, and the videotape is pretty darn clear," Cohen says. "The video showed that the officer engaged in a long-prohibited conduct, a chokehold, and it doesn't seem to make any difference to the jury. And that's because the prosecutor decided that there should be no indictment for any criminal behavior."

Randolph McLaughlin, a law professor at Pace Law School and civil rights attorney, agreed.

"The grand jury is a tool of the prosecutor. At a minimum, it was negligent, it was reckless, it was some level of homicide. Surely they could have indicted this officer on any number of charges and let the public hear, let a trial happen, expose to the light of day what went on here. This man is a public servant, and he committed these acts as a public servant, wearing the uniform of a public servant, and he should be called to account for it."

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):

I think Ferguson kinda told us how it works.   DA doesn't think he can get a conviction.    Officer is not indicted.  

Same thing happens in NY.

Pretty much end of story.   Except for the libs complaining that there should have been a trial because they interpret the law differently.
 

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Read an article in Al Jazeera America a few days ago.   It explained why cops are seldom indicted and, even when they, are seldom convicted.  And, even when convicted, how the punishment is almost certainly nothing more than suspension/probation.   

Wish I could find it again.   You might learn something.

I love how you say, "this is how it is. So I'm right."

"This is how it is," is the reason people are upset.