Article

2014-12-11 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by junkiron 2014-12-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Every person who has ever served on a jury knows that, especially in cases that involves someone's death, deliberations can be a very emotionally traumatic experience. Putting your own emotions aside and ruling strictly according legal statutes is never easy. But as noted in the article, the necessity to rule according to logic, rather than emotion, is the entire strength of the American justice system.

If you watch the entire Eric Garner video (unedited version) you will see that it lasted more than 30 minutes and all actions employed by the police officers were orchestrated by the (African American) officer in charge

While methods used against Eric Garner "appear" aggressive and against police policy, the grand jury ruled no "actual laws were broken" by the arresting officers.

As intimated in the article the whole purpose for the grand jury process is to protect American citizens from trumped up charges by an over zealous legal system. In most states any person accused of a felony offense has the legal right to have their case heard before the grand jury. Any attempt to alter those rights is a threat to the civil rights of all American citizens.

Posted by martaWhoople 2014-12-11 11:19|| 2014-12-11 11:19|| Front Page Top

#2 There is an old saying that.. LIFE SUCKS AND THEN YOU DIE. (And resisting arrest is a good way to prove it.)

Posted by slugomagoo 2014-12-11 12:07|| 2014-12-11 12:07|| Front Page Top

#3 It's not that he was black. It was that the state would use so much force, up to death, to engage in the collection of taxes at that petty level. You don't see the socialist demonstrating about that basic factor. They want their 'pound of flesh' from the proles.

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-12-11 12:14|| 2014-12-11 12:14|| Front Page Top

#4 I think most people would agree it is better to have some guilty people remain free rather than put innocent people in prison. Of course when a case is tried in the media that sentiment is often reversed but then they are usually playing with truthy facts.

Posted by rjschwarz 2014-12-11 14:23|| 2014-12-11 14:23|| Front Page Top

#5 Would it have been so bad to have a trial in either of these recent cases?
That probably would have eliminated a lot of this protesting bs, they don't have the attention span.

Posted by bigjim-CA 2014-12-11 18:30|| 2014-12-11 18:30|| Front Page Top

#6 I respectfully doubt that either the police or the grand jury were concerned with penny ante tax collection issues.
Eric Garner was a career criminal, with a history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.
At the time of Garner’s death, he was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

Illegally selling cigarettes was in violation of the terms of Eric Garner's bail agreement, which left the police officers with no other choice except to arrest him.

The jury sat for nine weeks. It heard testimony from 22 civilian witnesses and 28 others, including police officers, emergency medical personnel and doctors.

There also were 60 exhibits admitted into evidence. They included photographs of the scene, four videos, NYPD records and autopsy information.

As was intimated previously, no other entity is better informed, instructed, or inherently qualified to determine whether an accused individual should be held over for trial.

The judge, Stephen Rooney of state court, disclosed the details in response to a prosecutor's request that limited information be released. The prosecutor did not ask for the release of further exhibits of testimony. Grand jury proceedings are secret unless a judge orders otherwise which would be a great disservice to the members of the jury and potentially put them and their family's safety in jeopardy.

There is little doubt that the members of the grand jury found themselves under immense pressure from many quarters to indict officer Pantaleo. It is always a great temptation and a lot easier for a grand jury to vote to indict and kick the responsibility for determining guilt or innocence on up the line to the petit jury.

The main stream media invariably and incessantly calls the grand jury decision a "failure" to indict.

It is, in my opinion, a testament to the courage and integrity of the grand jury, in the face and prospect of inciting national outrage, to vote in favor of what they truly believed to be justice according to the volume of evidence they were entrusted to deliberate upon.

Posted by junkiron 2014-12-11 18:32|| 2014-12-11 18:32|| Front Page Top

#7 Was he booklegging dozens and dozens of boxes? In either the original charge or this act? Really?

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-12-11 20:44|| 2014-12-11 20:44|| Front Page Top

22:36 tu3031
22:25 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:19 swksvolFF
22:14 swksvolFF
22:11 USN, Ret.
21:16 Woodrow Stalin1308
21:09 Barbara
20:58 Pappy
20:55 Steve White
20:53 Pappy
20:44 Procopius2k
20:24 Dale
20:19 AlanC
19:51 Barbara
19:44 Barbara
19:43 Theting Glasing4448
19:31 Shipman
19:28 Shipman
19:25 Shipman
19:23 Shipman
19:21 Shipman
19:21 Bill Clinton
19:21 KBK
19:20 Shipman