No it's not. It should have been an independent prosecutor because it sure looks like he didn't want to indict a cop.
They could have indicted on felony reckless endangerment and grand juries can also return misdemeanor indictments if they want, it's just that you don't put together a grand jury for the express purpose of only misdemeanors.
The prosecutor could have absolutely presented those lesser offenses if he wanted to. He chose not to. It's hard to think of any answer as to why not.
No it's not. It should have been an independent prosecutor because it sure looks like he didn't want to indict a cop.
Seems to me they just arrest this guy as a matter of course, and he usually has something (loose cigarettes, weed) they can prosecute. If nothing else they'll charge him with resisting arrest - pretty much resisting the arrest for resisting arrest.So Eric Garner was killed because of an accusation he was selling untaxed cigarettes. There was no proof in this incident, there was probable cause for arrest. BTW - past actions are not probable cause for current actions.
Eric Garner was arrested and killed for an alleged financial crime in NYC, meanwhile in a different part of the same city one of the biggest financial crimes which cost the country trillions, no arrests.
So the cops say they were right for arresting Garner, what would happen if the police showed up at the doors of JP Morgan to arrest the CEO? Seems to me the probable cause is equal.
Okay, Kizzy Adoni is hereby nominated as the coolest name in the news this month. She may be an, um, orifice, but her name rules.Maybe you should ask those questions of the on scene supervisor (Sergeant) who ordered the arrest.
I believe her name Kizzy Adoni and she's an African American
Probably to make it less likely they indict.I'm still trying to figure out why the prosecutor didn't ask the grand jury to include any lesser offenses. Prosecutors basically always ask to include lesser offenses. What would be the reason not to?
In this case the conduct of the prosecutor has a pretty bad stink around it. I've seen calls in a number of places to appoint an independent prosecutor when it comes to police misconduct cases to eliminate conflicts of interest like this.
Would the CEO resist arrest? Especially if he had a heart problem of some kind? If he did reist arrest, and had a heart attack, wouldn't that sort of be his own fault? If you can't handle the ride, don't buy the ticket. aka if you can't handle the struggle with a cop, then don't cause a struggle.
Maybe you should ask those questions of the on scene supervisor (Sergeant) who ordered the arrest.
I believe her name Kizzy Adoni and she's an African American
I tend to agree in principle, but at what point does a man just snap and say no more hassle?Would the CEO resist arrest? Especially if he had a heart problem of some kind? If he did resist arrest, and had a heart attack, wouldn't that sort of be his own fault? If you can't handle the ride, don't buy the ticket. aka if you can't handle the struggle with a cop, then don't cause a struggle.
I'm increasingly thinking that police shootings should be investigated and presented by federal prosecutors, just to remove the appearance of collusion.No it's not. It should have been an independent prosecutor because it sure looks like he didn't want to indict a cop.
I'm increasingly thinking that police shootings should be investigated and presented by federal prosecutors, just to remove the appearance of collusion.
That's probably a better idea. The DoJ is by its nature politicized; most people (including me) don't have a clue as to the identity of the state AG.Or at least a state attorney general's office. Having someone be in charge of prosecuting people they rely on to get their job done is probably a bad idea as I agree, even if they are 100% impartial about things it still at least gives the appearance of impropriety.
It removes racial bias as the basis for the decision to arrest the person.
They could have indicted on felony reckless endangerment and grand juries can also return misdemeanor indictments if they want, it's just that you don't put together a grand jury for the express purpose of only misdemeanors.
The prosecutor could have absolutely presented those lesser offenses if he wanted to. He chose not to. It's hard to think of any answer as to why not.
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 four videos, NYPD records and autopsy information.
It's quite possible that the prosecutor knew that based on the evidence and testimony that there was no probable cause that supported reckless endangerment either.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eric-ga...-releases-limited-details-regarding-evidence/
wait, you're trying to say the prosecutor thought there was enough evidence for the charges he brought but not enough for reckless endangerment?
You can't be serious. That makes no sense.
It makes sense if you interpret his remarks to mean that the same defense against the more serious charges is also a defense against the reckless endangerment charge.
Or, to put it another way, if you can get the reckless endangerment charge you should be able to get the more serious charge(s).
I.e., no real reason to go for a reckless endangerment charge.
Fern
What on earth are you basing this idea on? Anything?
-snip-
A legal website that discussed NY's law on reckless endangerment and some defenses against it.
Fern
E.g., if the jury felt that there was reasonable doubt that the "choke hold" (held for 13 seconds, after which there was no damage found to the man's neck by the M.E., and after which the man spoke 11 times) was the cause of death neither the more serious charges nor reckless endangerment would be indictable.
Seemed to me the difference between reckless endangerment and the more serious charges was the issue of intent. Reckless endangerment, IIRC, does not require intent. And a defense to reckless endangerment is that the action did not cause the death (or, there was reasonable that doubt that it did).
I.e., the charges have the same defense(s) in common. So, a defense against one is also a defense against the other.
Fern
A legal website that discussed NY's law on reckless endangerment and some defenses against it.
Fern
E.g., if the jury felt that there was reasonable doubt that the "choke hold" (held for 13 seconds, after which there was no damage found to the man's neck by the M.E., and after which the man spoke 11 times) was the cause of death neither the more serious charges nor reckless endangerment would be indictable.
Seemed to me the difference between reckless endangerment and the more serious charges was the issue of intent. Reckless endangerment, IIRC, does not require intent. And a defense to reckless endangerment is that the action did not cause the death (or, there was reasonable that doubt that it did).
I.e., the charges have the same defense(s) in common. So, a defense against one is also a defense against the other.
Fern
Apparently it *is* possible to get an indictment against a police office for killing someone.
"BOULDER, Colo. A former Boulder police officer convicted of killing a treasured bull elk in an upscale neighborhood was sentenced Friday to four years of probation."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/2...4-years-probation-for-killing-big-boy-trophy/
Well to be fair, a black man isn't worth as much as an elk:|
Well to be fair, a black man isn't worth as much as an elk:|
Well, I can tell you elk, do not loot neighborhoods, so that's something.