Man Dies After NYPD Chokehold

[cobber]

On an unrelated gun charge.

Details, shmetails... Never let facts get in the way of umbrage!!

 

[rambone]

A Grand Jury Did Indict One Person Involved In Eric Garner's Killing -- The Man Who Filmed It

The guy with the camera allegedly exercised the 2nd Amendment. The system worked again.

On an unrelated gun charge.

Details, shmetails... Never let facts get in the way of umbrage!!

Hmm. I thought I made it pretty clear that it was a gun charge. Notice the part about the 2nd Amendment?

NYC violently oppresses gun freedom and cigarette freedom, but rewards violence. It is appalling.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

In watching each of these cases (Ferguson and New York City) unfold I am concerned about one fact that I hope will be better addressed in the future.

That being that in each case the defendant was allowed to present their point of view during the grand jury investigation, and each defendant also happened to be a law enforcement officer.

Now for the record I really don't care if the accused are allowed to testify at a grand jury investigation or not, but what I DO want is equal treatment in our court system.

I am hoping someone can correct my perception that in most cases grand juries do NOT hear from the defendant at all. Is this true? And if so, then I believe we have prosecutors in both of these examples have showed a bias and given unequal protection to one group over another. This perception is very troubling to me and I hope the system may be tweaked to avoid the possible unequal treatment in the future.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

I am hoping someone can correct my perception that in most cases grand juries do NOT hear from the defendant at all. Is this true? And if so, then I believe we have prosecutors in both of these examples have showed a bias and given unequal protection to one group over another. This perception is very troubling to me and I hope the system may be tweaked to avoid the possible unequal treatment in the future.

The correlation is true - defendants do not testify to GJs - but the causation is different.

I cannot think of a situation where a defendant's attorney would allow him/her to testify in front of a GJ. The testimony (by definition) would be under oath and VERY likely admissible in an actual trial.

I'm open to being corrected by the criminal defense practitioners out there. Been a long time since I was in that world.

 

[rambone]

That being that in each case the defendant was allowed to present their point of view during the grand jury investigation, and each defendant also happened to be a law enforcement officer.

Now for the record I really don't care if the accused are allowed to testify at a grand jury investigation or not, but what I DO want is equal treatment in our court system.

I am hoping someone can correct my perception that in most cases grand juries do NOT hear from the defendant at all. Is this true? And if so, then I believe we have prosecutors in both of these examples have showed a bias and given unequal protection to one group over another. This perception is very troubling to me and I hope the system may be tweaked to avoid the possible unequal treatment in the future.

Good point. In a recent Nevada case, the defendant (shot by police) was not even allowed to attend his own GJ hearing. The system worked out for him real good.

 

[T.Lex]

I do not know the laws/rules about GJs in Nevada, but think it unlikely that there's a "rule" against defendant's testifying in them. GJs do meet in secret and are not publicized. This is for the protection of the GJ members.

A defendant cannot be compelled to testify in a GJ proceeding under the 5th amendment.

 

[Libertarian01]

The correlation is true - defendants do not testify to GJs - but the causation is different.

I cannot think of a situation where a defendant's attorney would allow him/her to testify in front of a GJ. The testimony (by definition) would be under oath and VERY likely admissible in an actual trial.

I'm open to being corrected by the criminal defense practitioners out there. Been a long time since I was in that world.

To T.Lex,

While your assessment of the bolded section may well be true, I still believe that each defendant should have equal opportunity if they so desire to testify. Otherwise, we allow prosecutors to radically unbalance the scales of justice by showing favoritism to one class or group of people over others.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

To T.Lex,

While your assessment of the bolded section may well be true, I still believe that each defendant should have equal opportunity if they so desire to testify. Otherwise, we allow prosecutors to radically unbalance the scales of justice by showing favoritism to one class or group of people over others.

Regards,

Doug

I respectfully disagree - both with your conclusion and your suggestion.

But, a "reform" (which is actually kinda a return to old school) I could get behind would be to require (in Indiana) GJs review all class A and B felonies (I'd be open to C felonies, too). That would mean jury nullification on the front end on all sorts of things - drug crime, gangbanger kills other gangbanger.

Keep in mind, another issue with GJs is the membership. What sort of people do you want making these decisions?

 

[Rookie]

I learned, on INGO, that jury nullification is bad.

 

[rambone]

Keep in mind, another issue with GJs is the membership. What sort of people do you want making these decisions?

I think it should be voluntary and random. The pool should include the downtrodden as well as people who have felt what it is like to be arrested and oppressed.

When the GJ is composed of people living in isolated bubbles in gated communities, its going to be difficult for them to relate to the guy selling cigarettes on the street to survive.

 

[T.Lex]

I learned, on INGO, that jury nullification is bad.

Hold on. I thought the INGOverse held that jury nullification was good. It is necessary to combat the unrivaled super-villain powers held by elected prosecutors.

 

[T.Lex]

I think it should be voluntary and random. The pool should include the downtrodden as well as people who have felt what it is like to be arrested and oppressed.

Voluntary - like a "voluntary tax" or truly voluntary?

What do you think would happen if all the volunteers (or even a majority of them) and/or randomly selected were felons?

When the GJ is composed of people living in isolated bubbles in gated communities, its going to be difficult for them to relate to the guy selling cigarettes on the street to survive.

Honestly, IME those gated community people are as likely to be on juries as Martians are. You're more likely to retirees or unemployed people.

 

[rambone]

Voluntary - like a "voluntary tax" or truly voluntary?

What do you think would happen if all the volunteers (or even a majority of them) and/or randomly selected were felons.

I think they would be less likely to throw a person in prison for a bogus reason. When it comes to finding "peers" to a person on trial, who better than someone who has been been on trial himself?

Definitely voluntary service. I don't think any government service should be compulsory.

 

[Rookie]

Hold on. I thought the INGOverse held that jury nullification was good. It is necessary to combat the unrivaled super-villain powers held by elected prosecutors.

No, it's bad, because common, uneducated people have no business deciding if a law is just. That job should be left up to the smart people living in their ivory towers.

 

[T.Lex]

I think they would be less likely to throw a person in prison for a bogus reason.

Or any reason!

When it comes to finding "peers" to a person on trial, who better than someone who has been been on trial himself?

Someone that can at least plausibly say they are objective.

Definitely voluntary service. I don't think any government service should be compulsory.

Ok, I'm curious (and I hope you know by now that I mean no offense with this question) - what possible evidence do you have that people would volunteer? Keep in mind, they would likely have to spend a significant amount of time (lets say at least 5 hours per week) for (let's say) 3 months, to accomplish the screening. Civic duty? Like the 99% of people registered to vote? (Purple implied.) Like the 99% of people who show up for at least 1 town/city council meeting per year?

I don't see it.

What about repeat volunteers? Would there be any limit to how many times someone could volunteer?

While the USian system is the best system in the world (current decisions included), we can always look to do better. Can we improve the GJ system? Probably. Either way, we should at least examine it.

This may be a derail, and worthy of its own thread, but I see the current situation FAR less about race and more about authority.

Think about it. Conservatives have had an authority figure problem with the various layers of gov't for at least a generation. Now, Liberals are starting to have the same problem, but it is cloaked in race. "Hands up, don't shoot" could just as easily be used by gunowners as a rallying cry.

 

[jwh20]

Something that (obviously) the liberal-biased media has not even mentioned...

With the latest "outrage" at Mr. Garner we have to ask, "Why were the police after him to begin with?"


It seems he did nothing wrong EXCEPT to violate either a local, state, or federal law against selling un-taxed cigarettes. In other words he's a "bootlegger". Hardly a violent crime in my opinion.


Of course NYC is a liberal controlled city located in a liberal controlled state (NY) and the BATF is run by an Obama appointee.


So this incident is ENTIRELY the fault of LIBERALS! In their insatiable greed to collect tax money and to squelch any possible entrepreneurial spirit, they sent the police - chief-ed by a liberal appointed police chief - to arrest Mr. Garner.


So why is this ANYTHING but a liberal conspiracy?

 

[T.Lex]

So why is this ANYTHING but a liberal conspiracy?

Because a conspiracy would require a common understanding of what the goal was.

All those different layers of gov't are functionally incapable of working together as part of a conspiracy.

Rather, the situation is a product of the implementation of liberal ideas. That doesn't require a premeditated objective. The policies basically set the table for this to happen.

 

[Denny347]

I dono, if I shoot and kill someone during the course of my duties, I'm required to testify at the Grand Jury if I am not mistaken. Then the jury can ask me whatever question they feel the need to. Maybe that is the key, the ability to ask and answer any question that comes to mind without objections by the lawyers.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is necessary to combat the unrivaled super-villain powers held by elected prosecutors.

Thank goodness, common sense returns to this thread.

 

[rambone]

Ok, I'm curious (and I hope you know by now that I mean no offense with this question) - what possible evidence do you have that people would volunteer? Keep in mind, they would likely have to spend a significant amount of time (lets say at least 5 hours per week) for (let's say) 3 months, to accomplish the screening. Civic duty? Like the 99% of people registered to vote? (Purple implied.) Like the 99% of people who show up for at least 1 town/city council meeting per year?

I don't see it.

What about repeat volunteers? Would there be any limit to how many times someone could volunteer?

With less criminal laws (or less prosecution efforts) we can shrink our need for an army of grand jurors. The system is overburdened in every area it seems. There are just too many ways to be put on trial in America. Prosecutors need to exercise more of that discretion on victimless crimes.

Perhaps in those circumstances, the admittedly limited number of civic activists could fill the necessary juries.

I don't have a problem with repeat jurors. They voluntarily enter the pool, and randomly get asked to commit to a case.

This may be a derail, and worthy of its own thread, but I see the current situation FAR less about race and more about authority.

Think about it. Conservatives have had an authority figure problem with the various layers of gov't for at least a generation. Now, Liberals are starting to have the same problem, but it is cloaked in race. "Hands up, don't shoot" could just as easily be used by gunowners as a rallying cry.

Good observation, I agree. Noticed this myself. I think that is why the media & politicians are relentlessly trying to make these issues about race -- not authority. They'd prefer we bickered with each other about skintone instead of a popular uprising against too much government. They are masters of controlling the issues and controlling the masses.