NYPD chokehold case
- Thread starter Smallcock
- Start date
This is an example of an individual not obeying the law, getting arrested and resisting, police using force resulting in his death.
There's a reason why chokes have been banned as a control technique in most law enforcement curricula.
What I was about to write.
I can see why the Grand Jury failed to indict but this one is far and away closer than the Ferguson case.
What law was he not obeying? At what point did he stop resisting arrest? While he was resisting arrest was he being violent or threatening? What part of "I can't breathe" is not intelligible to a listener?
Being suspected of selling cigarettes should never be a death sentence. Resisting? I see a big teddybear running his mouth. The cops were never in danger. There was no need for excessive use of force. Furthermore the chokehold technique used is banned and apparently the officer doing it had done it before and got charged for it.
Time for crime needs to be proportionate. Should an officer be allowed to choke you to death for jay walking?
Chokeholds, in the law enforcement world, are viewed with as much scrutiny and should be used as sparingly as pulling their pistols. It is a potentially lethal technique and should be reserved for when there is a threat of grievous bodily harm or death.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666
The Ferguson case was full of incompetence by the Prosecutors office. They purposely threw it.
Last edited:
Idiot trolls are on this board now I see.
The only thugs in this case were the police and prosecutors who covered everything up for Darren Wilson. He was shot in the back multiple times.
Fuck the redneck hick culture of the United States.
You seem to be a great advocate for death as a means of dealing with disobedience.
Tell me, how does a man resist arrest in the midst of dying?
Pathetic! Fergosun case... cop says he feared...acquitted. NY case...cop in charge of situation and killed the guy...acquitted. Your handle says "souljah" so perhaps you are one of the "them"!!
I'm outraged. It seems a cop can choke a man to death and get away with it. I saw the video, and in NO way was that man posing a threat to those numerous officers. Just a another fucking cop on a power trip.
Jay walking is a ticketable offense. But resisting arrest can lead to more serious matters. It's like speeding and not stopping when the cop tries to pull you over. What do you think is going to happen. Just take the ticket.
Here's what a lot of people are missing, both for the Michael Brown and for this case:
There is no double jeopardy for grand jury trials.
All of the people yelling and screaming for a full trial in either of these cases? You're arguing for the cops in these cases. You don't think you are, but you are. Because if the case is so weak that it's fucking possible for the prosecutor to "throw the case" and not get an indictment out of a grand jury, the defense would have to have a monumentally stupid lawyer to not win an actual trial. And once that happens, Game Over. No more re-trials. No more prosecution. Nada. Zip. Nothing.
For fuck's sake, did you not learn anything from the Zimmerman case of last summer? DON'T TRY A CASE UNLESS THE GRAND JURY GIVES YOU AN INDICTMENT. A grand jury is looking for 50%+. A trial jury is looking for 99%+. If you can't clear the 50%+ mark (which is why Angela Corey skipped the Grand Jury and that's how the Zimmerman case was actually lost by the prosecution), then you're dead meat when it comes to clearing the 99%+ bar.
In the Michael Brown case it was pretty damn clear from the outset that there wasn't enough to get a conviction. It would take smoke and mirrors to get an indictment, let alone a conviction. Yes, the prosecutor COULD have gotten an indictment if he really, really spun it. And then what? Wilson goes 100% free after the trial, after millions of dollars are spent both on his lawyers and on the prosecution and the circus of the trial, all for a dead case that would have 0% chance of winning.
Not getting in indictment means the prosecution can still keep digging for more information, for more witnesses, and keep trying.
Do I think they're going to? No. Because unless some new evidentiary bombshell drops, which I don't happen to think is likely, the Brown case is done. But if a video comes out that shows Brown with his hands up and meekly obeying orders when Wilson shoots him dead, not going to trial means you can still prosecute Wilson. If you went to trial, Wilson was found not guilty, and THEN you find the video, Wilson stays free. Double jeopardy. At that point, he's immune on murder charges.
Is any of that getting through to you people? Yes, the prosecutors are chickening out. They're chickening out the SMART way, by leaving their options open (which Angela Crowley didn't, in a fit of grandstanding stupidity). while also not wasting time, money, and effort that would be better directed towards cases the could be WON.
Prosecutors in most jurisdictions have really good conviction rates. Like 90%+ rates. The feds get something like 99% convictions when they actually go to trial. There's a reason for that: they like slam dunks. They like to bury the opposition. All of these terrible, tragic cases are set up to bury the prosecution instead.
There is no double jeopardy for grand jury trials.
All of the people yelling and screaming for a full trial in either of these cases? You're arguing for the cops in these cases. You don't think you are, but you are. Because if the case is so weak that it's fucking possible for the prosecutor to "throw the case" and not get an indictment out of a grand jury, the defense would have to have a monumentally stupid lawyer to not win an actual trial. And once that happens, Game Over. No more re-trials. No more prosecution. Nada. Zip. Nothing.
For fuck's sake, did you not learn anything from the Zimmerman case of last summer? DON'T TRY A CASE UNLESS THE GRAND JURY GIVES YOU AN INDICTMENT. A grand jury is looking for 50%+. A trial jury is looking for 99%+. If you can't clear the 50%+ mark (which is why Angela Corey skipped the Grand Jury and that's how the Zimmerman case was actually lost by the prosecution), then you're dead meat when it comes to clearing the 99%+ bar.
In the Michael Brown case it was pretty damn clear from the outset that there wasn't enough to get a conviction. It would take smoke and mirrors to get an indictment, let alone a conviction. Yes, the prosecutor COULD have gotten an indictment if he really, really spun it. And then what? Wilson goes 100% free after the trial, after millions of dollars are spent both on his lawyers and on the prosecution and the circus of the trial, all for a dead case that would have 0% chance of winning.
Not getting in indictment means the prosecution can still keep digging for more information, for more witnesses, and keep trying.
Do I think they're going to? No. Because unless some new evidentiary bombshell drops, which I don't happen to think is likely, the Brown case is done. But if a video comes out that shows Brown with his hands up and meekly obeying orders when Wilson shoots him dead, not going to trial means you can still prosecute Wilson. If you went to trial, Wilson was found not guilty, and THEN you find the video, Wilson stays free. Double jeopardy. At that point, he's immune on murder charges.
Is any of that getting through to you people? Yes, the prosecutors are chickening out. They're chickening out the SMART way, by leaving their options open (which Angela Crowley didn't, in a fit of grandstanding stupidity). while also not wasting time, money, and effort that would be better directed towards cases the could be WON.
Prosecutors in most jurisdictions have really good conviction rates. Like 90%+ rates. The feds get something like 99% convictions when they actually go to trial. There's a reason for that: they like slam dunks. They like to bury the opposition. All of these terrible, tragic cases are set up to bury the prosecution instead.
Both the Ferguson case and the Eric Garner case should at the very least go to trial. Many legal experts and former prosecutors say that its very easy for any prosecutor to indict a ham sandwich.
Nancy Grace is a former prosecutor who claims that this particular prosecutor used the jury as his own personal tool instead of presenting them with the evidence
Nancy Grace is a former prosecutor who claims that this particular prosecutor used the jury as his own personal tool instead of presenting them with the evidence
