Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Mazmaz]

It's not a competition

[Nephlite]

It's not a competition

Didn't say it was. I was just showing a video.

[notorious bum]

De Blasio will veto law against NYPD choking ppl: "Internal policy...best way to monitor cops"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6469830.html

Considering that chokeholds are illegal and they still got away with murder, I'd say that this isn't going to sit very well with the public. /sigh

[Nephlite]

I still want to know how something that's against departmental regulations is illegal.

[archibaldcrane]

Well, choking people is illegal, and if it's not acceptable police activity either, how is it not?

[Waraji]

Because, police are above the law? I got nothin. :shrug:

[Acevalefor]

The timing, perfect.

Yesterday, on the PCC campus, I overheard a newby officer (not sure which department) say " I am above the law! It's called qualified immunity!" while arguing with a student over something...

[Nephlite]

There's nothing specifically prohibiting a chokehold in the law. It's the intent that's prohibited, and without intent, it's just merely assault. I'm just being nitpicky here, but saying it's illegal is silly.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Is assault illegal?

[Nephlite]

Is assault illegal?

It is, but again it lacks intent. Assault is actual or threat of bodily injury with the intent to cause that person bodily harm. You have to prove the intent of the officers was to assault him or cause Garner physical injury. Since it lacks that intent, the most you have is a violation of SOP.

[Arelian]

How is putting someone in a chokehold (an act of outright aggression) not part of the intent to cause someone bodily harm? And even if it's no longer assault, wouldn't that constitute battery? Which is... still illegal, I thought?

[Nephlite]

Assault and battery are the same thing, or at least they have the same legal ramifications.

The intent of the officers wasn't to assault Garner, it was to restrain him. If it was a callous enough action to say their only intent was to rough him up and not take him in to custody, they could essentially prove intent. Since they couldn't, it qualified them for immunity.

This is why I said they needed to charge all of the officers as a group. Not only can you blanket a negligence act against them, but you could also hit them with a bodily harm statute for group aggravated assault, which is not covered by qualified immunity if you can just prove that all of their actions combined caused significant bodily injury (in this case, death).

I should be a prosecutor.

[noblemountain]

http://5newsonline.com/2015/01/14/fi...e-sues-police/

Here's that blue line that doesn't exist. Cop snitches on another cop for using his position to fuck prostitutes, the snitch gets fired.

[Salodin]

TIL an officer can disrobe while trying to obtain probable cause during a prostitution sting. Well...what do ya know lol.

[Acevalefor]

It is, but again it lacks intent. Assault is actual or threat of bodily injury with the intent to cause that person bodily harm. You have to prove the intent of the officers was to assault him or cause Garner physical injury. Since it lacks that intent, the most you have is a violation of SOP.

Here is the New York definition of First Degree Assault, Definition 3:

S 120.10 - 3. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to another
person; or

I'm gonna say he is not guilty of assault because he caused more than serious injury. Let's look a little higher up on the spectrum.

S 125.10 Criminally negligent homicide.
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with
criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.
Criminally negligent homicide is a class E felony.

Now let's look up criminal negligence.

4. "Criminal negligence." 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.

Yep. That fits much better than assault. There are probably better matches than even negligent homicide considering the death was caused by an intentional action and not by something like failing to stop and accidentally hitting a pedestrian.

Something like this:

S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person

And, for clarity, here is the legal definition of criminal recklessness:

3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or
to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware of and consciously disregards 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 disregard thereof constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is
unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts
recklessly with respect thereto.

Source: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm#p120.10

So, there it is. The choking officer acted outside of procedure, engaged in an activity that would knowingly cause death and, subsequently caused said death. He is not qualified for immunity and has clearly violated New York law. Manslaughter sounds like the correct charge. GTF outta here with "Assault" unless you're gonna let me rob a bank and charge me with jaywalking for it.

Also, you should not be a prosecutor.

[Nephlite]

He is not qualified for immunity and has clearly violated New York law. Manslaughter sounds like the correct charge.

He does qualify for immunity, because that's the only reason I can fathom that he wasn't charged. In order to get criminally negligent homicide, the death has to be during the commission of a crime. If they said he was acting within the scope of his duties, the maneuver qualifies under immunity though it's prohibited by departmental policy, it's still not illegal.

[Nephlite]

http://5newsonline.com/2015/01/14/fi...e-sues-police/

Here's that blue line that doesn't exist. Cop snitches on another cop for using his position to fuck prostitutes, the snitch gets fired.

He didn't get fired because he snitched, he got fired because he went outside his department and chain of command and knowingly gave an outsider information of an undercover officer, who then posted that undercover officers information online where everyone can see it, then he lied about it when an internal investigation was filed against him. Why didn't he take it to his supervisors and try to cover it up? Dishonesty in any form can get you fired, and that hurts all your cases if a defense attorney gets your personnel record.

[Acevalefor]

He does qualify for immunity, because that's the only reason I can fathom that he wasn't charged. In order to get criminally negligent homicide, the death has to be during the commission of a crime. If they said he was acting within the scope of his duties, the maneuver qualifies under immunity though it's prohibited by departmental policy, it's still not illegal.

I get what you are saying, but he was committing a crime by performing an action that was outside of procedure, banned by the department, and considered assault II (Escalated to Manslaughter when the guy dies) for any other person. He killed a guy for selling cigarettes. I just don't understand how any DA or special prosecutor would not bring charges on that. But we are beating a dead horse at this point. The only fathomable excuse I can come up with, and it is way off in make-believe land, is there is something behind the scenes at play in our courts that throws cases against police officers. You have to do something as stupid as killing a homeless man on camera to get charged. It also helps to live in New Mexico where the cops are just as dangerous as the streets they patrol.

[notorious bum]

Your boy Pat Lynch is in trouble:

A group within the PBA plans to unveil an opposition slate later this month to challenge for leadership of the union. It would mark the first time since 2003 Lynch would be challenged for his post.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/g...icle-1.2076930

[Mazmaz]

Remember those cops that are being tried for murder of that homeless man?