Ferguson unrest

[Smallc]

Really, Shady? It's not illegal to choke someone? If it's against police policy for them to use this particular choke, then it's aggravated assault because the officer used physical force causing bodily harm that he was not sanctioned to use.

I don't think a charge involving the killing was wareanted but I don't understand the conclusion that no charge was warranted.

[On Guard for Thee]

Huh? What kind of charge then would be warranted, a parking violation?

[Bryan]

Sorry Shady, it is in fact illegal. Has been since 2010.

Choke holds are NOT illegal. They are legally performed all over the world everyday, including in New York. It's not even illegal for the police to use, it's just against department policy. A cop who does perform one during an arrest will not be criminally charged for it, but he might face internal discipline.

[Smallc]

Huh? What kind of charge then would be warranted, a parking violation?

Wrecess endangerment was one that was brought oh by me as it was a charge the GJ was considering.

[On Guard for Thee]

It is illegal for the NYPD. Go do some research.

[Bryan]

It is illegal for the NYPD. Go do some research.

Take your own advice and go do that research. Start here:

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140908/civic-center/bratton-opposes-law-make-chokeholds-illegal

The chokehold is banned by NYPD policy, but there is no law making it illegal.

[On Guard for Thee]

Try looking up NY Penal Law article 121

[Bryan]

Thank you for further confirming that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[On Guard for Thee]

It tells you why the chokehold is illegal in NY.

[Bryan]

It tells you why the chokehold is illegal in NY.

No it doesn't.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm done wasting my time. If you can't read what is clearly obvious and understand it then just carry on.

[Bryan]

I'm done wasting my time. If you can't read what is clearly obvious and understand it then just carry on.

Thank god for that, because your delusional rants are getting really tedious.

[On Guard for Thee]

You've obviously not read/understood the statute. All you have is an outdated newspaper post. Talk about tedious.

[Bryan]

You've obviously not read/understood the statute. All you have is an outdated newspaper post. Talk about tedious.

I have read it. Unlike you though, I actually understand it.

[On Guard for Thee]

So then now you understand it's illegal. Right there in black and white. Finally.

[Bryan]

Choke holds are not illegal.

[On Guard for Thee]

What is it about " a person commits an offense" you don't understand?

[On Guard for Thee]

Here's the simplest version of it I can find. It should be quite clear.

http://www.new-york-lawyers.org/lawyer-attorney-2284255.html

[Bryan]

Did this person commit an offense? It's in New York. Several police officers were on hand. Unlike what happened to Eric garner, it really is a chokehold.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Bryan

[On Guard for Thee]

now you're flailing. Perhaps you actually read the law and found out the chokehold is illegal and your argument has gone down in flames.

[jbg]

It would seem the two situations aren't at all similar.

It's a hybrid.

I finally watched the videos of the Eric Garner situation and I'll admit I owe a lot of apologies on this Board. As I lawyer, I would want to know what charges were presented as possibilities for purpose of indictment. If the only charge presented was murder, I agree that the justice system was trying to help the officer walk away with no consequences. The reason is that clearly the officer did not wake up that morning and plan on killing someone.

From what I can see on the video only, what should have been charged, in addition to murder, was involuntary manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, aggravated assault and similar charges. Garner's language was belligerent but from what I could see was not a threat to anyone. Also, once his liberty was ended, there was no need to toss him to the ground. To my mind, Garner's crime was "walking while black" and he died from it. The grand jury would have rightly been told that to sustain a murder indictment that the perpetrator had to either have premeditated a death, or been involved in the commission of another felony (called felony murder). Those elements were lacking. But for the same reason that someone who goes to a bar and "ties one on" with 10 shots of vodka, then goes out and drives, and kills someone is charged with involuntary manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or aggravated assault, the officer should have been charged with one of those.

Now, from a public relations perspective the crowds would not have been satisfied and you might see similar demonstrations. However, that is the way the laws are set up and I don't think that police officers should be able to use arrested suspects as people on whom to vent their aggressions.

The Eric Garner situation is is very different from the Michael Brown case and I'll admit I prejudged the matter. Context is vitally important. Dealing with an 18 year old who reaches into a police car and scuffles with an officer is a very different situation from an apparently gentle man trying to earn a living in a very mildly illegal manner. Eric Garner did not rob a store. He violated a regulation designed to ensure the collection of taxes. No one should die for that.

[Bryan]

now you're flailing. Perhaps you actually read the law and found out the chokehold is illegal and your argument has gone down in flames.

I already knew the law. I just posted a video of someone being put in a choke hold. His breathing and blood flow were being deliberately restricted. Why was the assailant not arrested?

[On Guard for Thee]

If you knew the law why did you waste so much time arguing it was not the law? How the hell would I know why someone wssn't arrested?

[Bryan]

How the hell would I know why someone wssn't arrested?

You do know why.... it's because he didn't do anything illegal.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Bryan

[On Guard for Thee]

Well then he must not have used a choke hold.