Untitled

I scrolled through my newsfeed and didn’t see any posts about police killing people today, and certainly none about white officers and black victims, so here we go. 

A NY Grand Jury recently decided not to indict Daniel Pantaleo, in the death of Eric Garner.  Pantaleo placed Garner in a chokehold when Garnder resisted arrest.  This chokehold killed Eric Garner.  In case you forgot the NYPD’s chokehold policies, allow me to remind you: yes, NYPDOs are banned from using them.  Watch a video of the Garner CH here or here.

No Grey Area for NYPD Chokehold Use

Part of the reason chokeholds are banned, is the window between effectiveness and damage is difficult.  If a person is not out in 5-10 seconds, the hold has likely been performed incorrectly, and may suffer brain damage, or death.  

So when Pantaleo decides to use a CH and kills someone, why is the Grand Jury so hesitant to indict?  He’s clearly liable for criminal charges, despite his claims of intent.  

“I became a police officer to help people and to protect those who can’t protect themselves,” Officer Pantaleo said. “It is never my intention to harm anyone.” 

He is either lying, or lacks the necessary mental processes (like following protocol, or releasing after the CH has exceeded legitimate duration) to follow through on protecting and avoiding harm.  

That being said, I’m not convinced that it is time to abandon the grand jury process, and I can understand the decision not to indict in this circumstance.

The role of a grand jury is not to determine whether or not a law was broken. And it certainly isn’t to pass moral judgment on the accused. The one and only job of a grand jury, according to the Times article you cite is to, “determine whether enough evidence exists for a case to go forward to a criminal trial, either before a jury or a judge.”

 One of the operative words in that description is criminal. You say that “He’s clearly liable for criminal charges” because he used chokehold, which is against NYPD policies. However, police guidelines and policies are not laws, therefore violating them does not constitute a criminal offense.

Of course, the police officer could still be reasonably accused of breaking some type of homicide law. We do not know what law he was accused of breaking, because there is no Sunshine Law (like there is in Missouri) in the state of New York. After perusing New York homicide law, it seems to me that the most likely law officer Pantaleo violated is that of criminally negligent homicide (since most others require some sort of intent, which is hard to evidence), defined in New York as:

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

Criminal negligence is defined as (emphasis added):

A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

In this case, it would be hard to gather the evidence indicating that the risk not perceived by Officer Pantaleo was a “gross deviation” from reasonable precaution, because there were other factors involved in Eric Garner’s death. The autopsy concluded that it was the neck compressions combined with the chest compressions (likely suffered when there were multiple police officers on top of him) that lead to his death. Mr. Garner also had imperceivable health problems which contributed to him dying from the incident, namely his “acute and chronic bronchial asthma.” 

These factors, and the fact that the other officer charged with killing an asthmatic with a chokehold was acquitted, provide some reason as to why the grand jury might not have thought enough evidence existed to convict of a criminal offense.

However, the justice system does not stop here. The federal government can pursue civil rights charges against the officer. In the case from 1994, the officer who was acquitted ended up serving jail time as the result of such an investigation.

police guidelines and policies are not laws, therefore violating them does not constitute a criminal offense.

You’re right.  To a degree.  Violating NYPD policies alone is not a crime.  But evaluating the probability of his criminal negligence is the real takeaway.

Refer back to your definition of negligence (different emphasis added):

A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

The very reason chokeholds were banned by the NYPD is because of the substantial risk they have.  The NYPD explicitly thinks these risks are unjustified.  His failure to observe this policy speaks directly to his negligence for this very reason. 

The standard we hold POs to, or rather that POs attempt to hold themselves to, only works when they’re held accountable for deviating from this standard.  This is why the GJ process has so dramatically failed us.  Please visit pauljac3fan's article to note how easily the GJ process is used by prosecutors to indict.  

I think that one of the reasons there should have been charges brought in the Garner case is due to Garner stating repeatedly, “I can’t breathe”, and Officer Pantaleo continually holding the chokehold. I’m not very knowledgable on the criminal negligence homicide information. So if anyone knows- Would the fact that the suspect made repeated claims that he was unable to breath change anything about the criminal negligence homicide charge? 

I also think it’s important to note that the New York medical examiner ruled the death a homicide.

The Garner case also makes me question if police body cameras will do anything to help our justice system. I was definitely for the implementation of body cameras, but this case just makes it seem as if it won’t help at all.

But, assuming that Pantaleo ought to have been indicted, where did the breakdown(s) in justice occur, and what can we do to make our society more just?

I remain skeptical that the Grand Jury process is the root, or even a significant root, of the injustice of a system. The referenced five-thirty-eight article is interesting, and significant. However, it isn't conclusive. If shows a major discrepancy and offers an inexhaustive list of possibilities for the discrepancy, not all of which are malicious.

A more concerning article from the site examines the biases in the Staten Island area residents. I believe that people will put aside their biases in situations like this, but if they cannot, it seems unlikely that a criminal trial would produce a different verdict that the grand jury decision. It also seems unlikely that prosecutors who "go easy" on police in Grand Jury, wouldn't go easy on them in a criminal trial. So do we need an alternative justice system for cases involving police? 

I am inclined to believe that the problem is in our laws and court rulings that give police (and others) leeway to use deadly force in various circumstances. Pantaleo's lawyer's account of his testimony claims that at the time when the deadly chokehold/compression was applied (the initial takedown may or may not have been an improper technique), the officer feared for his life because of the position the tussle left him in.

How can our laws balance the right to defend one's self from reasonable danger while stile protect the perceived threat? What makes an action reasonable?

I scrolled through my newsfeed and didn’t see any posts about police killing people today, and certainly none about white officers and black victims, so here we go. 

A NY Grand Jury recently decided not to indict Daniel Pantaleo, in the death of Eric Garner.  Pantaleo placed Garner in a chokehold when Garnder resisted arrest.  This chokehold killed Eric Garner.  In case you forgot the NYPD’s chokehold policies, allow me to remind you: yes, NYPDOs are banned from using them.  Watch a video of the Garner CH here or here.

No Grey Area for NYPD Chokehold Use

Part of the reason chokeholds are banned, is the window between effectiveness and damage is difficult.  If a person is not out in 5-10 seconds, the hold has likely been performed incorrectly, and may suffer brain damage, or death.  

So when Pantaleo decides to use a CH and kills someone, why is the Grand Jury so hesitant to indict?  He’s clearly liable for criminal charges, despite his claims of intent.  

“I became a police officer to help people and to protect those who can’t protect themselves,” Officer Pantaleo said. “It is never my intention to harm anyone.” 

He is either lying, or lacks the necessary mental processes (like following protocol, or releasing after the CH has exceeded legitimate duration) to follow through on protecting and avoiding harm.  

That being said, I'm not convinced that it is time to abandon the grand jury process, and I can understand the decision not to indict in this circumstance.

The role of a grand jury is not to determine whether or not a law was broken. And it certainly isn't to pass moral judgment on the accused. The one and only job of a grand jury, according to the Times article you cite is to, "determine whether enough evidence exists for a case to go forward to a criminal trial, either before a jury or a judge."

 One of the operative words in that description is criminal. You say that "He’s clearly liable for criminal charges" because he used chokehold, which is against NYPD policies. However, police guidelines and policies are not laws, therefore violating them does not constitute a criminal offense.

Of course, the police officer could still be reasonably accused of breaking some type of homicide law. We do not know what law he was accused of breaking, because there is no Sunshine Law (like there is in Missouri) in the state of New York. After perusing New York homicide law, it seems to me that the most likely law officer Pantaleo violated is that of criminally negligent homicide (since most others require some sort of intent, which is hard to evidence), defined in New York as:

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

Criminal negligence is defined as (emphasis added):

A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

In this case, it would be hard to gather the evidence indicating that the risk not perceived by Officer Pantaleo was a "gross deviation" from reasonable precaution, because there were other factors involved in Eric Garner's death. The autopsy concluded that it was the neck compressions combined with the chest compressions (likely suffered when there were multiple police officers on top of him) that lead to his death. Mr. Garner also had imperceivable health problems which contributed to him dying from the incident, namely his "acute and chronic bronchial asthma." 

These factors, and the fact that the other officer charged with killing an asthmatic with a chokehold was acquitted, provide some reason as to why the grand jury might not have thought enough evidence existed to convict of a criminal offense.

However, the justice system does not stop here. The federal government can pursue civil rights charges against the officer. In the case from 1994, the officer who was acquitted ended up serving jail time as the result of such an investigation.

This has been a hot button issue throughout the entire U.S., especially in Nebraska.  The proposed new pipeline would offer a more direct route to Texas and thus to the ports.  Currently, there is a smaller pipeline. However, the Keystone XL pipeline will be much larger, capable of transporting 830,000 barrels of oil a day.  The problem for the American public is two fold. One, we will continue to damage the environment and the delicate ecosystem of the Sand Hills, and two, we will also remain dependent upon fossil fuels for energy instead of turning to renewable resources.  The proposition has clear supporters: Republicans, and opposers: Democrats.  However, with the newly elected U.S. Senate, come January this proposition will no longer simply be a proposition.   

I think it is strange that you call the Republicans unjustly blind. The truth is, the State Department did an extensive study on the environmental effects of the pipeline, which, according to that article, "raised no major environmental objections." It seems to be to be a waste of the taxpayers' money to fund such a report, and then promptly disregard it when it doesn't give you the results you want. It's just like that time the Browns spent $100,000 to determine that Teddy Bridgewater was the best QB prospect and then drafted Johnny Manziel.

Now, I'll admit, I'm not from Nebraska, and I'm not familiar with all of the precise environmental harms. However, I think the biggest mistake people who oppose the Keystone Pipeline for environmental reasons make is comparing it to the status quo. The question should not be, "What will a world with the pipeline in it look like compared to the world today?" the question should be "What will a world with the pipeline in it look like compared to a world without the pipeline?". This is precisely the question that the State Department report asks (you can find it here http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf). 

Absent the Keystone Pipeline, the oil market will not simply stop drilling and give up. Instead, it will find different ways to get the oil that would be brought through the pipeline down to the gulf. Starting on page ES-28, the report considers how the status quo might change to solve the problem sans the Keystone Pipeline. The detriments of these alternatives are compared with the various pipeline routes on the grounds of physical disturbances, CO2 emissions, and oil spills (ES-33, ES-34, ES-36). The alternatives to the pipeline seem to have comparable or worse environmental effects. 

The Egyptian militant group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis pledged allegiance to the Islamic State’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Monday, joining a growing number of jihadist groups outside of Syria and Iraq who’ve offered their support to the self-declared caliphate.

The ballot initiative will hike the state’s minimum wage to $8 per hour in 2015 and to $9 an hour in 2016.

Seeing as election day just passed, I think it is perfect timing to talk about the minimum wage increase. Personally, I am happy about it (I work at a children’s museum of course I would love to be paid more for dealing with those brats), but I am somewhat surprised that it passed. Embarrassingly I was not as informed as I should have been for these elections, and only really felt passionate about the result of this vote after seeing an ad on TV for it. But I was caught off guard by Norman Anderson’s, who voted against the raise, statement near the end

[Minimum wage should] be a good start for kids in high school, not a wage for adults supporting families.

Perhaps in a perfect society that would be true. Perhaps in Socrate’s perfect city we would be able to control exactly who did what job, how much they were paid, and their living expenses. But this is the corrupt democracy we are living in, 2nd from the bottom, and to continue to vote against such initiatives despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary about it seem ludicrous to me. 

Double voting: Election officials in 27 states, most of them Republicans, may launch a massive purge of black, Hispanic and Asian-American voters.

A republican-lead initiative has lead to millions of Americans, vastly minorities, to be placed on a list of people potentially banned from voting at the next election.  The enormous list has been compiled of people who, according to the Interstate Crosscheck software, are suspect of having voted in multiple states.  While voting in such a manner is an offense punishable by up to a decade in jail, the problem lies in the inaccuracy of the program.  Many of the so-called ‘matches’ do not have matching middle initials, social security numbers, or don’t account for junior and senior titles.  

If a portion of the almost 7 million names on the list have their voting rights taken from them, elections could easily be swayed.  The list being comprised heavily of minorities, who statistically have shown to vote democrat, is highly suspicious given that it is being lead by republican officials.  I find it hard to believe that they are pursuing these bans for any other reason than to tilt the elections in favor of the republicans.  Both the timeliness and the voting demographics affected by the program make it highly suspect.  This might be different if voter fraud was an actual problem in the U.S., however it has been proven to be minuscule (http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/).

The database shows 207 cases of other types of fraud for every case of voter impersonation.