Eric Garner Grandy Jury Decision Today

#801
#801
I've seen the video and while tragic, I don't see the big deal. Numerous complaints had been made about him and the police responded to check it out. He cops an attitude and gets combative..... Gets taken down.... And unfortunately dies because he's a big out of shape fat ass with asthma.
I've watched Cops enough to know that every time someone gets taken down or cuffed they're always yelling "my arm", "they're too tight ", " you're killing me" or some other BS.

When is anyone ever going to ask or consider what role or lack of personal responsibility the "victim" contributed to the situation?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#802
#802
n_huffhines said:
This case is so depressing to me. It's a microcasm of everything wrong with our system of criminal justice, from the creation of law, to enforcement, to adjudication. Half of America looks at it and says, "I see no problem here." It's damn discouraging.
Click to expand...

Dude they didn't beat the guy to death.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#803
#803
n_huffhines said:
This case is so depressing to me. It's a microcasm of everything wrong with our system of criminal justice, from the creation of law, to enforcement, to adjudication. Half of America looks at it and says, "I see no problem here." It's damn discouraging.
Click to expand...

Do you think the cops just decided to walk up and kill the guy? The media preys on people like you.....people with sensitivities... And I don't mean that as an insult. The cops knew this guy and knew him well. It's unfortunate he died, but his attitude and actions contributed to his death. He wasn't without blame
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#804
#804
lawgator1 said:
10348385_830433380353384_2725993668222233112_n.jpg
Click to expand...

You need to change that to say Fox news now describes the color blond.
 
#805
#805
Carl Pickens said:
Do you think the cops just decided to walk up and kill the guy? The media preys on people like you.....people with sensitivities... And I don't mean that as an insult. The cops knew this guy and knew him well. It's unfortunate he died, but his attitude and actions contributed to his death. He wasn't without blame
Click to expand...

If this is your response to my post you quoted, you didn't understand my post. If you're just speaking your mind off the cuff, thanks, I guess?
 
#808
#808
Carl Pickens said:
It was my response to your post because I'm one of the half you mention that doesn't see a problem
Click to expand...

You don't see a problem with laws that create more criminals than communist china?

You don't see a problem with law enforcement that is allowed to use excessive force to the point that alleged criminals who are non-violent are killed?

You don't see a problem with government workers being tried in government courts?

I'm not asking if you think the cop should have been indicted. I'm just asking if you have a problem with any of this, and your answer is, no?

What happened to conservatism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#809
#809
n_huffhines said:
You don't see a problem with laws that create more criminals than communist china?

You don't see a problem with law enforcement that is allowed to use excessive force to the point that alleged criminals who are non-violent are killed?

You don't see a problem with government workers being tried in government courts?

I'm not asking if you think the cop should have been indicted. I'm just asking if you have a problem with any of this, and your answer is, no?

What happened to conservatism?
Click to expand...

1. canard
2. there's no "alleged" about it. Garner had been arrested 30 times and was out on bail for a list of charges on the day he died.
3. where else are you going to try policemen? civilian tribunals? sharia courts?
4. the cop should have been indicted
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#810
#810
n_huffhines said:
You don't see a problem with laws that create more criminals than communist china?

You don't see a problem with law enforcement that is allowed to use excessive force to the point that alleged criminals who are non-violent are killed?

You don't see a problem with government workers being tried in government courts?

I'm not asking if you think the cop should have been indicted. I'm just asking if you have a problem with any of this, and your answer is, no?

What happened to conservatism?
Click to expand...

1. How do laws create criminals? If u r talking about the cigarette thing....I know if I was a store owner.....paying all the licenses and fees it takes to be a legal store owner that I would be pissed about some guy selling loosies on the street.

2. They didn't use excessive force.....they used the force necessary to detain him which could have been prevented if he complied instead of resisted.

3. He went before a grand jury which is a group of their peers that decide if their is enough evidence to indict....Its not a perfect system but what is a better choice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#811
#811
n_huffhines said:
You don't see a problem with laws that create more criminals than communist china?

You don't see a problem with law enforcement that is allowed to use excessive force to the point that alleged criminals who are non-violent are killed?

You don't see a problem with government workers being tried in government courts?

I'm not asking if you think the cop should have been indicted. I'm just asking if you have a problem with any of this, and your answer is, no?

What happened to conservatism?
Click to expand...

1) if people want to live under that kind of law, I won't keep them from doing so. I simply won't live there. We say that all the time to people who don't like conservative laws. Should it not work the same both ways?

2) the alleged choke hold might have been against policy but for a guy that size it's going to take substantial force to detain him.

3) I don't even know what you're asking here. Grand jury is still a jury of your peers.
 
#812
#812
MG1968 said:
1. canard
2. there's no "alleged" about it. Garner had been arrested 30 times and was out on bail for a list of charges on the day he died.
3. where else are you going to try policemen? civilian tribunals? sharia courts?
4. the cop should have been indicted
Click to expand...

Private courts. There is a conflict of interest that nobody would stand for in the business world, why do we allow it in government? The DA who works with cops to get ahead in his career is going to fairly prosecute cops? Or the flip, an idealist DA who has been stymied by cops his whole career is going to fairly prosecute a cop?

The courts are so ****ed up. When you go up against the government it's like you're playing the Yankees and the Yankees get to choose the umpire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#813
#813
n_huffhines said:
Private courts. There is a conflict of interest that nobody would stand for in the business world, why do we allow it in government? The DA who works with cops to get ahead in his career is going to fairly prosecute cops? Or the flip, an idealist DA who has been stymied by cops his whole career is going to fairly prosecute a cop?

The courts are so ****ed up. When you go up against the government it's like you're playing the Yankees and the Yankees get to choose the umpire.
Click to expand...

there are a lot of cops in prison as a result of the system you so eloquently criticize

if what you're saying was true, no cop would be convicted and sent to prison
 
#814
#814
volbeast33 said:
1. How do laws create criminals? If u r talking about the cigarette thing....I know if I was a store owner.....paying all the licenses and fees it takes to be a legal store owner that I would be pissed about some guy selling loosies on the street.

2. They didn't use excessive force.....they used the force necessary to detain him which could have been prevented if he complied instead of resisted.

3. He went before a grand jury which is a group of their peers that decide if their is enough evidence to indict....Its not a perfect system but what is a better choice?
Click to expand...

1. Who cares if the store owner is pissed? He shouldn't have to comply with absurd laws either.

2. They used a banned choke hold that killed a guy. What is your definition of excessive force?

3. You can indict a ham sandwich, you just can't indict killer cops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#815
#815
MG1968 said:
there are a lot of cops in prison as a result of the system you so eloquently criticize

if what you're saying was true, no cop would be convicted and sent to prison
Click to expand...

Cool. Did you read this part?

n_huffhines said:
Private courts. There is a conflict of interest that nobody would stand for in the business world, why do we allow it in government? The DA who works with cops to get ahead in his career is going to fairly prosecute cops? Or the flip, an idealist DA who has been stymied by cops his whole career is going to fairly prosecute a cop?

The courts are so ****ed up. When you go up against the government it's like you're playing the Yankees and the Yankees get to choose the umpire.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#816
#816
n_huffhines said:
1. Who cares if the store owner is pissed? He shouldn't have to comply with absurd laws either.

2. They used a banned choke hold that killed a guy. What is your definition of excessive force?

3. You can indict a ham sandwich, you just can't indict killer cops.
Click to expand...

1. Or the guy on the street corner could get a legitimate job to provide for his family.

2. The choke hold didn't kill the guy according to what has come out so far.....U r just assuming it did.

3. Killer cop is an inflammatory term especially when this group of cops was just doing their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#817
#817
volbeast33 said:
1. Or the guy on the street corner could get a legitimate job to provide for his family.

2. The choke hold didn't kill the guy according to what has come out so far.....U r just assuming it did.

3. Killer cop is an inflammatory term especially when this group of cops was just doing their job.
Click to expand...

Their job is to use banned maneuvers to detain petty criminals?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#818
#818
n_huffhines said:
Cool. Did you read this part?
Click to expand...

so when a cop doesn't get indicted, it's because of a cozy relationship with the DA, but when he does get indicted, it's because the DA has an axe to grind?

it must be nice to live in a world where everything is an either/or proposition
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#819
#819
MG1968 said:
so when a cop doesn't get indicted, it's because of a cozy relationship with the DA, but when he does get indicted, it's because the DA has an axe to grind?

it must be nice to live in a world where everything is an either/or proposition
Click to expand...

Lulz. What an absurd conclusion you've come to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#822
#822
n_huffhines said:
Private courts. There is a conflict of interest that nobody would stand for in the business world, why do we allow it in government? The DA who works with cops to get ahead in his career is going to fairly prosecute cops? Or the flip, an idealist DA who has been stymied by cops his whole career is going to fairly prosecute a cop?

The courts are so ****ed up. When you go up against the government it's like you're playing the Yankees and the Yankees get to choose the umpire.
Click to expand...

SamRebel35 said:
No, he didn't. That's you projecting absurd logic onto his tongue in cheek metaphor.
Click to expand...

what about that quote is "tongue in cheek"?
 
#824
#824
MG1968 said:
what about that quote is "tongue in cheek"?
Click to expand...

Do you know what a metaphor is? If you find the metaphor, you will find the "tongue in cheek". As for your interpretation of the rest of his statement, you are either being wilfully obtuse, or you aren't old enough to know what obtuse means.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top