It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"You can't say 'I can't breathe' if you can't actually breathe"

page: 2
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: elementalgrove

I tend to think it's more like reckless disregard or negligent homicide. But, regardless, the failure to obtain any indictment does seem to underscore the impunity and abject power of the Police State.


I think that would be more applicable as well. I think they would've had a very, very hard time proving any intent to kill. I'm a bit shocked by the lack of anything along the "negligence" lines though.




posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ZzurvanN


I would imagine this would be due to the jury being intimidated by the thought of having retaliatory actions brought against them if they indicted the police. Quite a distressing state of affairs. Hard to think who can possibly stand up against these abuses of power.


Personally, I think a big factor is the fact that DAs and law enforcement work hand in glove.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

Do those charges result in life in prison!?

If so I agree, the way he smiled and waved to the camera after taking Eric's life is all I needed to see to know that the psychopath known as Daniel Pantaleo deserves to be put away with the worst of the worst for the rest of his life.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

Reckless endangerment nor manslaughter would traditionally result in a conviction of more than a handful of years.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
It occurs to me that, ironically, a taser is all of the sudden starting to look good - "Please tase me bro!! I'd rather live."



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
It seems that getting killed by the police is occupational hazard of being a criminal.i`m not saying it`s right,i`m not saying it`s wrong I`m just saying if getting killed by the police isn`t something that you want to risk than stop committing crimes.
I haven`t paid much attention to all these stories and I don`t know any of the details, but one thing they all seem to have in common is that the person who was killed was involved in some sort of criminal activity.
since it seems that the police will be allowed to continue killing people without being charged then play it safe and don`t commit crimes. you can greatly reduce your chances of being confronted and killed by the police if you aren`t committing crimes.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

This is why I jumped to the, what to most would be "extreme" position of believing that he should be charged with murder and nothing less.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Personally, I think a big factor is the fact that DAs and law enforcement work hand in glove.


Agreed.

I think the failure to indict here is a clear example of that. There is an unstated quid pro quo that exists between LEO and Prosecutors - "Help us get a conviction, we'll protect you from prosecution."

Plus the very simply fact that both are used to line the coffers of city governments so it's all condoned with a wink and a nod.
edit on 12/4/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Hefficide

This is why I jumped to the, what to most would be "extreme" position of believing that he should be charged with murder and nothing less.


Were he to be charged with murder, he most likely wouldn't be convicted and then wouldn't spend a day incarcerated. A negligent homicide charge would have a higher chance of a conviction, and incarceration.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
It seems that getting killed by the police is occupational hazard of being a criminal.


Well the failed logic of that sad justification is that they aren't actually criminals until they are convicted.
They are simply citizens or suspects.
edit on 12/4/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You seem to know the legal system a little better than I!

I do not know how those things would shake out, if what you are saying is true then by all means I would prefer that.

Now on to the apparently difficult task of officers being held accountable by grand juries! Another area I know nothing about, but am beginning to suspect have long been used to let officers guilty of wrongdoing to the highest degree walk free, showing other LEO's they can do the same if they are so inclined!



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus



That's 12 year-old Tamir Rice who had a toy gun. He was shot to death less than 2 seconds after the cops showed up.



That's 22 year-old John Crawford who was minding his own business buying a BB gun in Wal-Mart and talking to his GF on the phone when cops showed up and shot him to death.

Maybe if you're not going to pay attention it's best not form ANY opinion at all.
edit on 2014-12-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

And sad, desperate justifications have been attempted for each one.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

I do have a fair bit, yes. It really comes down to "something is better than nothing." That's why sometimes (not always) you see charges get reduced. A prosecutor may feel that they will have trouble securing a conviction on a greater charge, but a lesser charge is all but guaranteed. Still puts the offender away for at least some period of time.

As for grand juries, it's pretty common for a prosecutor to defer to a GJ when it's likely to be a controversial or explosive case. It gives them the safety net of "well *I* didn't bring these charges, the GJ did so be mad at them." it doesn't even have to be in regards to law enforcement though, it can be pretty much any politically sensitive case. Defense attorneys will run towards a high profile case. Prosecutors tend to run away from them unless they're a near guarantee.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

Just have to add this ,i am not American so i feel this thread is better started by someone that lives there . But really . What is going on there .

www.9news.com.au...



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: kosmicjack

Just have to add this ,i am not American so i feel this thread is better started by someone that lives there . But really . What is going on there.

www.9news.com.au...

Unfortunately. What we've been warned about by some of the brightest minds of their day. We just didn't listen, and now it may be too late.



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer




I am not saying to go out and kill a cop but it appears the only way the government looks at any issue is when it is out of control and all over the media.


SSSHH!

That's exactly the kind of thing that will produce the prophetic doom and gloom scenario of Marshal Law and Fema Camps, to house everyone arrested for uprising, that the wingnuts agitators are hoping for!


edit on 4-12-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I have no interest in delving into the details of every police involved shooting,that`s what the grand jury is for,I also have no interest in playing Monday morning quarterback and second guessing the actions of the police and the grand jury.
They are out there everyday putting their lives in danger to protect us. their actions in each individual situation is a judgement call based on their training.
They might not always make the right spur of the moment judgement call but that`s no reason to throw them in jail.
Their actions aren`t based on malicious intent or willful neglect.if people think it`s so easy to go out there everyday and make the right call every time, while putting their lives in jeopardy, then they should turn off their computers and go sign up to be a police officer.

Monday morning quarterbacking is for cowards.


edit on 4-12-2014 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
it wont fix everything but if you dont know how to use a chokhold than how is that any diferent from not knowing how to use your gun

proper training ... 3 months jiujitsu or no chokeholds

since when was it requiered to cut off someones oxegen supply to restrain them

might aswell shoot them in the neck same effect

im woried for out way of life

tho not that long ago when i war in my teens-20s i remeber if u resisted police ud be restrained never choked
maced tazed shot even never choked

choking is a act of torment it is not restraint it is not control

it is to make shure someone knows you can and will kill them if you wish

why do we allow this anytime someone is choked in any manner it is atempted murder and if the die murder




top topics



 
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join