how many thousands of innocent people have we killed in Iraq in circumstances that make this case look like it was an agreed upon wild-west type duel?
Huh?
Like people criticizing police shooting unarmed civilians are all hoo-banging for the military to kill Iraqis?
Why you feel the need to be an apologist here?
You gonna pull out the ol' "well, we didn't see what Rodney King did BEFORE the tape started rolling" excuse too?
i'm not being an apologist, but trying to offer some perspective in a thread that starts off with people saying "f*ck pigs".
this isn't like Luima, or in the legal sense, like the King trial. not police brutality....but a murder trial! we weren't sitting in the judges chair with the legal elements of each crime in front of us, taking in the witness' testimony and judging their credibility.
the legal system isn't perfect, far from it, but given the cops' side of the story in this case, i don't believe, that their rendition of the facts warrants manslaughter/homicide verdicts.
is this verdict likely to cause "unrest" in some neighborhoods?
I'm safely cloistered in a midtown office high rise, so no I'm not shook.
just wondering how the skreets are going to react this warm weekend.
wow
seriously
huh?
It was a serious question. Is this likely to cause unrest; I was soliciting the responses of locals in NY who may have their finger on the pulse.
I am curious to know.
the "safely-sequestered-in-midtown" remark was my not serious way of pre-empting a remark from Jonny that I was asking because I was scared (as he is aware that I am currently in NY).
I didn't say fuck pigs I said fuck THOSE pigs, get it right
Except that I'm pretty sure Keith is suggesting that "those pigs" don't deserve to have the f-bomb thrown their way since their actions were justifiable under the circumstances.
The basic argument is this: one patron of the bar and Bell were arguing (at 4am? drunk? SHOCK!) and patron A was clutching his pocket as if he had a gun (how exactly does one clutch his pocket as if he has a gun? Because I want to make sure that I'm NOT doing that)
Then, some witnesses overheard talk of a "gat" and when Bell and his crew left, the cops jumped to the conclusion that they were going to PULL A DRIVE-BY. Because, you know, that happens all the time in New York! Drive bys left and right you know.
I mean, if you cannot see the complete disregard for human life, for a careful appraisal of the situation, then I think you really have some issues.
this is what i'm talking about...you don't have all the facts right here, but your jumping up and down, condemning the verdict as if you were sitting in the courtroom, privy to all the evidence, with a full understanding of the law.
no doubt its a f*cked up situation, but sending a crew of cops to jail for 20 years because of a verdict reached in the court of public opinion is not justified.
go sit down with the elements of manslaughter, review all the testimony and evidence, then come back and start offering definite opinions as to their guilt UNDER THE LAW.
Except that I'm pretty sure Keith is suggesting that "those pigs" don't deserve to have the f-bomb thrown their way since their actions were justifiable under the circumstances.
i never said that....nor did i say that i even agree with the verdict. my point is that being wrong doesn't mean that they were guilty of manslaughter. thats all.
The basic argument is this: one patron of the bar and Bell were arguing (at 4am? drunk? SHOCK!) and patron A was clutching his pocket as if he had a gun (how exactly does one clutch his pocket as if he has a gun? Because I want to make sure that I'm NOT doing that)
Then, some witnesses overheard talk of a "gat" and when Bell and his crew left, the cops jumped to the conclusion that they were going to PULL A DRIVE-BY. Because, you know, that happens all the time in New York! Drive bys left and right you know.
I mean, if you cannot see the complete disregard for human life, for a careful appraisal of the situation, then I think you really have some issues.
this is what i'm talking about...you don't have all the facts right here, but your jumping up and down, condemning the verdict as if you were sitting in the courtroom, privy to all the evidence, with a full understanding of the law.
no doubt its a f*cked up situation, but sending a crew of cops to jail for 20 years because of a verdict reached in the court of public opinion is not justified.
go sit down with the elements of manslaughter, review all the testimony and evidence, then come back and start offering definite opinions as to their guilt UNDER THE LAW.
OK lawyer tell me what "facts" I don't have right.
I've been following this case locally since it happened last year.
I'm not in the courtroom - you're sure right about that.
"go sit down with the elements of manslaughter, review all the testimony and evidence, then come back and start offering definite opinions as to their guilt UNDER THE LAW. "
I think the concept of "rule of law" is good and necessary but these defenses are the worst kind of disingenuous apologism that get raised anytime people complain about injustice.
dude what's the problem? I was in LA when a certain bunch of pigs got acquitted of a certain beating of a motorist and the town erupted in violence.
so I ask NY strutters: is the community going to take this laying down or is there likely to be violence? are community leaders taking any steps to deal with the anger this verdict will engender?
obviously my hope is that things stay calm so as not to give the cops another opportunity to start shooting.
The basic argument is this: one patron of the bar and Bell were arguing (at 4am? drunk? SHOCK!) and patron A was clutching his pocket as if he had a gun (how exactly does one clutch his pocket as if he has a gun? Because I want to make sure that I'm NOT doing that)
Then, some witnesses overheard talk of a "gat" and when Bell and his crew left, the cops jumped to the conclusion that they were going to PULL A DRIVE-BY. Because, you know, that happens all the time in New York! Drive bys left and right you know.
I mean, if you cannot see the complete disregard for human life, for a careful appraisal of the situation, then I think you really have some issues.
this is what i'm talking about...you don't have all the facts right here, but your jumping up and down, condemning the verdict as if you were sitting in the courtroom, privy to all the evidence, with a full understanding of the law.
no doubt its a f*cked up situation, but sending a crew of cops to jail for 20 years because of a verdict reached in the court of public opinion is not justified.
go sit down with the elements of manslaughter, review all the testimony and evidence, then come back and start offering definite opinions as to their guilt UNDER THE LAW.
I wonder if you'd react with this bullshit if it was your fiance killed by cops under the same circumstances.
so I ask NY strutters: is the community going to take this laying down or is there likely to be violence? are community leaders taking any steps to deal with the anger this verdict will engender?
obviously my hope is that things stay calm so as not to give the cops another opportunity to start shooting.
how is this an illegitimate question to ask?
I think it was the other 2/3rds of your original question that's the problem dude.
It might have been meant in humor but came off seeming
How about assault? reckless endangerment? they were acquitted on those counts as well.
If this isn't manslaughter, what is it?
i'm not an expert in ny criminal law, but i imagine that in prosecuting a police officer, the elements of assault overlapped with manslaughter so that if they were guilty of assault they would have to be guilty of manslaughter.
meaning, that if their conduct was found to be outside the scope of their call of duty, then i don't see how they could be found guilty of assault (an intentional act), and not be guilty of manslaughter (where you don't need the intent to kill).
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
so I ask NY strutters: is the community going to take this laying down or is there likely to be violence? are community leaders taking any steps to deal with the anger this verdict will engender?
I'm not a big fan of Al Sharpton but I believe he is right when he said its not the community that's violent, its the cops, insinuating anything else is insulting.
So what this verdict means - as you are explaining from a legal perspective - is that they were acting within the confines of their job, in the line of duty.
and THAT is exactly what I (and others) have a problem with.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
It was a serious question.
yea,i know .
dude what's the problem? I was in LA when a certain bunch of pigs got acquitted of a certain beating of a motorist and the town erupted in violence.
so I ask NY strutters: is the community going to take this laying down or is there likely to be violence? are community leaders taking any steps to deal with the anger this verdict will engender?
obviously my hope is that things stay calm so as not to give the cops another opportunity to start shooting.
how is this an illegitimate question to ask?
Dude, your projectile expectations are MAD FAULTY.
How about assault? reckless endangerment? they were acquitted on those counts as well.
If this isn't manslaughter, what is it?
i'm not an expert in ny criminal law, but i imagine that in prosecuting a police officer, the elements of assault overlapped with manslaughter so that if they were guilty of assault they would have to be guilty of manslaughter.
meaning, that if their conduct was found to be outside the scope of their call of duty, then i don't see how they could be found guilty of assault (an intentional act), and not be guilty of manslaughter (where you don't need the intent to kill).
I think you need to sit down with the laws and look them over.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
So what this verdict means - as you are explaining from a legal perspective - is that they were acting within the confines of their job, in the line of duty.
and THAT is exactly what I (and others) have a problem with.
OK lawyer tell me what "facts" I don't have right. .
check the ny times website. btw, my point isn't that there is ONE set of facts. the judge determines credibility of the witnesses and is the ultimate fact finder. obviously, he sided more with the officers' version of the facts.
i'm not sure if he had to write an opinion, but if he did, its probably online, so that would be a good place to start. that would at least tell you the judge's version of what happened.
and....lets not forget that its guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. even for cops.
So what this verdict means - as you are explaining from a legal perspective - is that they were acting within the confines of their job, in the line of duty.
and THAT is exactly what I (and others) have a problem with.
first, i'm ATTEMPTING to explain what went into the verdict from a legal perspective. i've got limited criminal law experience here (rape and burglary) and NONE in new york. but....my point is that i don't think anyone can say this verdict is complete bullshit until they sit down and look at the law and all the testimony and evidence.
Comments
i'm not being an apologist, but trying to offer some perspective in a thread that starts off with people saying "f*ck pigs".
this isn't like Luima, or in the legal sense, like the King trial. not police brutality....but a murder trial! we weren't sitting in the judges chair with the legal elements of each crime in front of us, taking in the witness' testimony and judging their credibility.
the legal system isn't perfect, far from it, but given the cops' side of the story in this case, i don't believe, that their rendition of the facts warrants manslaughter/homicide verdicts.
If this isn't manslaughter, what is it?
Can cops just kill innocent people and drum up a story about "we thought he might pull a drive-by"?
I mean WHAT THE FUCK.
huh?
It was a serious question. Is this likely to cause unrest; I was soliciting the responses of locals in NY who may have their finger on the pulse.
I am curious to know.
the "safely-sequestered-in-midtown" remark was my not serious way of pre-empting a remark from Jonny that I was asking because I was scared (as he is aware that I am currently in NY).
so yeah, fall back, friends.
Except that I'm pretty sure Keith is suggesting that "those pigs" don't deserve to have the f-bomb thrown their way since their actions were justifiable under the circumstances.
this is what i'm talking about...you don't have all the facts right here, but your jumping up and down, condemning the verdict as if you were sitting in the courtroom, privy to all the evidence, with a full understanding of the law.
no doubt its a f*cked up situation, but sending a crew of cops to jail for 20 years because of a verdict reached in the court of public opinion is not justified.
go sit down with the elements of manslaughter, review all the testimony and evidence, then come back and start offering definite opinions as to their guilt UNDER THE LAW.
yea,i know .
i never said that....nor did i say that i even agree with the verdict. my point is that being wrong doesn't mean that they were guilty of manslaughter. thats all.
thread/
OK lawyer tell me what "facts" I don't have right.
I've been following this case locally since it happened last year.
I'm not in the courtroom - you're sure right about that.
I think the concept of "rule of law" is good and necessary but these defenses are the worst kind of disingenuous apologism that get raised anytime people complain about injustice.
dude what's the problem? I was in LA when a certain bunch of pigs got acquitted of a certain beating of a motorist and the town erupted in violence.
so I ask NY strutters: is the community going to take this laying down or is there likely to be violence? are community leaders taking any steps to deal with the anger this verdict will engender?
obviously my hope is that things stay calm so as not to give the cops another opportunity to start shooting.
how is this an illegitimate question to ask?
I wonder if you'd react with this bullshit if it was your fiance killed by cops under the same circumstances.
you do sound scared man. don't worry white people are safe in this city.
EVEN IN CROWN HEIGHTS!!!
I think it was the other 2/3rds of your original question that's the problem dude.
It might have been meant in humor but came off seeming
i'm not an expert in ny criminal law, but i imagine that in prosecuting a police officer, the elements of assault overlapped with manslaughter so that if they were guilty of assault they would have to be guilty of manslaughter.
meaning, that if their conduct was found to be outside the scope of their call of duty, then i don't see how they could be found guilty of assault (an intentional act), and not be guilty of manslaughter (where you don't need the intent to kill).
Just the facts, man.
I'm not a big fan of Al Sharpton but I believe he is right when he said its not the community that's violent, its the cops, insinuating anything else is insulting.
and THAT is exactly what I (and others) have a problem with.
Dude, your projectile expectations are MAD FAULTY.
I think you need to sit down with the laws and look them over.
Yep.
check the ny times website. btw, my point isn't that there is ONE set of facts. the judge determines credibility of the witnesses and is the ultimate fact finder. obviously, he sided more with the officers' version of the facts.
i'm not sure if he had to write an opinion, but if he did, its probably online, so that would be a good place to start. that would at least tell you the judge's version of what happened.
and....lets not forget that its guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. even for cops.
Yes, because, as we all know, police officers are continually victimized via the criminal justice system.
*sigh*
I can see it is going to be impossible to elicit a coherent response to my totally innocuous question in this thread. Have a nice day, folks.
PS Jonny, I'll be at Prospect Place and Flatbush if you want to stop by for tea. Not really Crown Heights, but still plenty of white people.
Toodles.
first, i'm ATTEMPTING to explain what went into the verdict from a legal perspective. i've got limited criminal law experience here (rape and burglary) and NONE in new york. but....my point is that i don't think anyone can say this verdict is complete bullshit until they sit down and look at the law and all the testimony and evidence.