And as you folks should know by now... I'm not a big Sean
Hannity booster.
When he's right, though...
* * *
* * *
Fox News’s star political commentators were completely in
sync after news broke Wednesday afternoon that there would be no indictment of
the white officer who killed Eric Garner, an unarmed black man who just before
his death was arrested for illegally selling cigarettes.
* AN UNARMED GIANT BLACK MAN WHO WHILE... RESISTING...
ARREST... DIED.
All the prime time bold names at Fox were saddened and, at
the very least, puzzled by the New York grand jury’s decision.
Except Sean Hannity.
* YEP. (AND AS YOU FOLKS KNOW, I'M NOT A HUGE FAN! BUT
WHEN THE GUY IS RIGHT... HE'S RIGHT.)
Hannity began his 10 p.m. EST show saying that what made
him “so angry” about the situation is that the Garner incident involved
illegally selling cigarettes, a minor crime.
He then took a dive into the psyche of the grand jury.
“If you want to understand, though, the grand jury’s
situation here,” Hannity began, “nobody in the media has gotten this right.
Because it may sound technical, it may sound like it’s semantics: There is a
very big distinction between a choke-hold and a head-lock.”
* AND... THERE... IS...!!!
The police altercation with Garner was caught on video
and appears to show several police attempting to bring him to the ground and
handcuff him.
* BECAUSE HE - GARNER - WOULDN'T LET THEM HANDCUFF HIM IN THE FIRST
PLACE! HE WAS RESISTING ARREST! WHAT DO YOU FOLKS EXPECT THE COPS TO DO? SHOULD
THEY HAVE TASARED HIM INSTEAD...???
One officer behind Garner has his arm around Garner’s
neck, which was widely described as a chokehold.
* INCORRECTLY IT SEEMS!
“I would not use the term choke-hold, as a martial artist
student,” Hannity said. “I wouldn’t use that term … while it may sound like a
small detail, I want to know how much the jury heard about choke-holds versus
headlocks, because a choke-hold is illegal. A headlock is not illegal."
(*NOD*)
Hannity’s guest, former Los Angeles police detective Mark
Fuhrman, agreed with Hannity that there is a difference but said what happened
to Garner did look like a choke-hold.
* FROM WHAT HE SAW FROM PUBLIC VIDEO. THE QUESTION IS...
WHAT DID THE EVIDENCE THE GRAND JURY WAS PRIVY TO SHOW...?
* RIGHT? REASONABLE QUESTION?
William Johnson, executive director of the National
Association of Police Organizations, confirmed the difference between a
choke-hold (a self-defense measure) and a headlock (a compliance technique) in
an email to the Washington Examiner. He noted, however, that he is unfamiliar
with the specifics of the Garner case and could not directly comment on it.
* I ADMIT; I'M NOT EXPERT. BUT AGAIN... THE GRAND JURY -
A NYC GRAND JURY - REFUSED TO INDICT. WHAT INFO WERE THEY PRIVY TO THAT WE'RE
NOT?
Even with the technical difference, though, a medical
examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide.
* AND I ADMIT... I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY.
* IT SEEMS TO ME THAT GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY WOULD BE
THE BEST WAY TO GO HERE; ALLOW US ALL TO KNOW WHAT THE GRAND JURY SAW AND
HEARD AND LET'S FIND OUT WHETHER THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S RULING WAS
"PROFESSIONAL" OR "POLITICAL."
Elsewhere during Fox’s prime time, Greta Van Susteren, a
former defense lawyer, said the video of Garner’s arrest was “stunning.” “When
he said, ‘I can’t breathe,’ that would have been a great invitation to stop,”
she said.
* AND IF HE'D BEEN FAKING...???
* AGAIN... THIS IS A SAD TALE... A TRUE TRAGEDY... BUT
GARNER MADE HIS BED WHEN HE RESISTED ARREST. IT'S THAT FRIGGIN' SIMPLE.
“I couldn’t agree more [with Greta],” replied co-host of
“The Five” Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former prosecutor.
* A FORMER PROSECUTOR - NOT A FORMER COP.
Bill O’Reilly, Fox’s biggest star, said Garner “did not
deserve what happened to him.”
* IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF "DESERVING." CERTAINLY
THE COPS WEREN'T LOOKING FOR THEIR ACTIONS TO LEAD TO GARNER'S DEATH. (O'REILLY
CAN BE SUCH AN A$$HOLE!)
Charles Krauthammer, arguably the brain for conservative
thought at Fox, said, “From looking at the video here, the grand jury’s
decision is totally incomprehensible.”
* WHEN KRAUTHAMMER IS RIGHT... HE'S RIGHT; WHEN HE'S
WRONG (AS HE CLEARLY IS IN THIS CASE) HE'S WRONG.
* RELEASE... THE... GRAND... JURY... EVIDENCE...
6 comments:
Hi Bill,
Just FYI, regarding the parsing of the choke hold/headlock: the city restricted the use of the chokehold in 1985, allowing it for when it was the least dangerous alternative method of restraint in the case where an officers life was in danger. This fails that test. And that was before it was banned altogether in 1993. Specifically the NYPD’s patrol guide bars cops from applying “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air”. The choke hold/headlock distinction does not exist. Krauthammer is right, Hannity, no surprise, is wrong.
Seems the only justification for the non-indictment is that there is a difference between an act which is banned in the NYPD’s rulebook and one that is deemed criminal per se. Maybe a distinction which gets the officer aquitted in trial, but not one which suggests there should not be a trial.
Whatever; done is done. Given the results, Pantaleo should be fired from the NYPD based upon NYPD guidelines, there should be no argument there.
This case shows that the whole discussion of putting cameras on cops is, in the current climate, pointless. The reality is police are empowered and allowed to use force without serious provocation, and lethal force without lethal threat. And they can do so without consequence. So long as that remains, these cases will keep on coming with the same results.
Rob,
Apparently it wasn't a choke-hold. Thus... the non-indictment.
Apparently it was a headlock.
As I understand it these are two different "moves" that can look very similar to an observer.
Thus... to write of "choke hold/headlock" is to simply create an equivalency that isn't there functionally... or apparently legally.
You disagree. I get that. I accept that.
(*SMILE*)
As for the rest of your post... how'bout Pantaleo's superiors? How'bout the black female sergeant who was on scene "supervising?" (Are you even aware of this? If not, don't feel bad... I only came across it while listening to Mark Levin on the way to the gym tonight.) Shouldn't she be fired for allowing this supposed breach of police regulations (or breach of law if that's what you think it was)?
Anyway... thanks for posting.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/12/breaking-eric-garner-arrest-death-supervised-by-black-female-police-sergeant/
Lost in the racial outcry over the decision to not indict white police officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Black petty criminal Eric Garner is the key fact that the attempt to arrest Garner was overseen by a Black female police sergeant.
* OOPS...
The Black female police sergeant is not shown in the countless replays in the media of cellphone footage that showed white male police officers confronting and taking down Garner but she is said to be seen in the video.
From a police report reported by PIX11 in July, the sergeant’s name appears to be Kizzy Adoni.
* HERE'S THE QUOTE:
“Another female sergeant, Kizzy Adoni, made a similar statement in the report. She “believed she heard” Garner say he was having difficulty breathing. Adoni also said “The perpetrator’s condition did not seem serious and he did not appear to get worse.””
(*PURSED LIPS*)
There is no mention of Adoni in a Google News search of the latest reports on the Garner decision.
* NOT SURPRISING... (I ONLY HEARD ABOUT THIS VIA MARK LEVIN'S RADIO SHOW THIS EVENING!)
There are very few mentions at all that a Black female sergeant oversaw the attempted arrest of Garner.
* THIS IS... er... INTERESTING... IS IT NOT?
NBC News in New York reported the sergeants at the scene were offered immunity for their testimony before the grand jury.
* VERY INTERESTING...
* QUOTING:
“Pantaleo is the only NYPD member facing possible indictment. Others at the scene, including two sergeants, were offered immunity for their testimony to the grand jury.”
* TO MY FRIEND ROB I WOULD ASK, "IF PANTALEO WAS TREATED AS A MURDER SUSPECT... SHOULDN'T THE PERSON WHO SUPERVISED HIS ACTIONS - ON SCENE - BE HELD TO THE SAME SUSPICION AND SAME INVESTIGATION SINCE SHE DIDN'T STOP PANTALEO BUT INDEED "SUPERVISED" THE TAKE-DOWN OF GARNER?"
* AS TO THE OTHER SERGEANT (OR TWO OTHERS... TWO OTHERS BESIDES SGT. KIZZY ADONI?) - WHAT'S THE DEAL THERE? ("DEAL"... GET IT...?!) SHOULDN'T EVERY COP ON THE SCENE DURING THE INCIDENT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A POSSIBLE CO-CONSPIRATOR TO A POSSIBLE HOMICIDE...???
Denis Hamill wrote at the New York Daily News that a federal civil rights case will likely be scuttled by the presence and oversight of Pantaleo’s actions by the Black female sergeant – who did not intervene in the attempted arrest.
* I DISAGREE. SINCE WHEN DOES BLATANT HYPOCRISY GIVE HOLDER PAUSE?
“Having that black sergeant in charge of that crime scene takes race out of the equation. As awful as Pantaleo’s actions appear on that video, at no time does that black sergeant order Pantaleo to stop choking Garner."
* ROB...??? FURTHER COMMENT...???
…”Any chance of a federal civil rights case will be hampered by that African-American police sergeant’s presence.”
* IN A SANE WORLD ONE WOUND THINK... BUT IN THE BRAVE NEW AMERIKA OF THE OBAMA AGE... I PUT NOTHING PAST THE FEDS.
Does Attorney General Eric Holder know? He just opened a civil rights investigation on Eric Garner’s death.
(*SHRUG*)
Re: chokehold. I see you disagree, which you always can. You are just wrong on the facts. NYPD patrol guide states: “Members of the New York City Police Department will not use chokeholds. A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.” The result of a non-indictment does not change the policy. There is just no argument as to whether or not he violated the policy and used a chokehold; and I know how you say you want to be right on the facts. The only question is whether violating police policy on patrol leaves you legally culpable. I would think so; don’t know exactly. Good reason for a trial. Guess not….
Re: Pundit article:
As to the question addressed to me: What murder suspect? While we do not know the grand jury charges, I doubt Murder was on the menu. I would think Reckless Endangerment, Felony Assault, maybe Criminally Negligent Homicide or Second Degree Manslaughter. Do you actually think First Degree Murder was on the table? Or are you just trying to create a straw man argument?
That said, I would think it would be too easy for any supervisor to state that they didn’t anticipate that Pantaleo would go for an illegal chokehold when she ordered him taken down. So I would expect the charges to be different. They cut immunity deals to go for the low hanging fruit which they couldn’t even get. But I, again, would certainly fire any supervisor there given the failure to manage and control the situation. I did not know there was anyone specifically in charge till I read it in the Huff Post yesterday morning. But I have no problem stating the failure to be egregious and fire any supervising officer.
In the end, speaking of the supervisors and the other officers there misses my point. Garner was in direct violation of the NYPA rules and on video, and they could not even get an indictment.
So, forget about going after any others. No police officer will be charged with anything unless he shoves a broken broomstick handle up someone’s *ss. Anything (or most anything) else goes.
As to the “big news” about the black sergeant, I read that in the Huffington Post yesterday; but it just isn’t relevant to anything I said. If there is a civil rights case to be made against NYPD policies (and I am not convinced that there are) then such a case would be grounded in institutional and systemic issues, i.e. not pertaining to the race of the individual officers. So, of course a civil rights case would not hinge on the race of the participating or supervising officers. I assume you know this? Anyway, I just don’t know that there is a case to be made.
This Grand Jury, and what I wrote, was about bad policing and violations of departmental protocol. I know you and the rest of the media like to make everything about race; guess you find more incendiary more fun. I say you and Al and Rush and Eric can all hold your own private (brief) cage match and beat each other up on the black-white view of the world.
But that view, and this article, is not germane to whether the indictment should have come or not.
Rob,
If it was a choke-hold... cutting off his air and ultimately causing death... why wasn't he indicted?
I understand that you're reading and repeating what you want to believe... AS AM I... but we're still left with the fact that Garner wasn't choked to death. Apparently he had an asthma attack from the stress of the situation which... (*DRUM ROLL*)... his behavior... his actions... led to.
As for regulations... let's assume that what you're reading is quoting the regs accurately and in context:
" A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”
BUT NOT LIMITED TO...??? What's that mean...? Can 1PP "deem" a punch to the jaw to be a chokehold? How'bout a punch to the stomach? Chokehold? I mean... BUT NOT LIMITED...???
Rob. Regs say all sorts of things and in the real world real people treat them flexibly. NYPD regs say that a cop can't shot at the driver of a moving vehicle. Does that mean if given the choice of being run over by some maniac of shooting the bastard you'd advise the cop to holster his gun and use the last seconds of his life being grateful for the pension his wife is gonna get and the pomp and circumstance of a cop's funeral?
Just as a side comment, it's been estimated that the average American breaks some sort of law three times a day. Obviously the norm is that we get away with it. Sometimes we're caught... and we still get away with it. Sometimes we're caught and we DON'T get away with it. Garner got caught. And I get it... YOUR position is that the cop got caught too! The Grand Jury disagreed though. (And they had all the evidence neither of us has.) And as for the regs... we'll see if administrative action (firing) takes place. From what I think I know... the cop SHOULDN'T be fired. If a head has got to roll it should be the SUPERVISOR'S head... this black female sergeant. (But again... for some strange reason... she was given immunity while the (white) beat cop was hauled before a Grand Jury.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Rob,
As to the charges before the grand jury... not sure. I was using "murder" in the colloquial sense... as I THOUGHT (???) you had been using the word.
(Of course we're then left with the Medical Examiner declaring the incident a homicide... so... (*SHRUG*)
As for your expectations of the supervisor... ON THE SCENE... wow... we certainly do differ on this one. I have no idea where this "failure to anticipate" argument is coming from. SHE WAS ON THE SCENE. SHE WAS SUPERVISING. SHE WAS FINE WITH THE TAKE-DOWN!
No, Rob... this whole you're fine with her going down with Pantaleo... your fine with her not going down with Pantaleo... I just don't get it. Seems like a cop-out (HA! HA!) to me.
Rob. I'm not "missing your point." I'm eviscerating your point! (*GRIN*) YOU keep on claiming that Pantaleo put Garner in an illegal chokehold and killed him... while the SUPERVISORS ON SCENE saw no illegal chokehold. (And the Grand Jury - though concerned with criminal, not regulatory, violations REFUSED TO INDICT.
Rob. To claim that supervisors on the scene seeing nothing untoward isn't relevant... (*SHAKING MY HEAD*)... that's just silly. As to race... you might wanna ask some of the marchers in the street if THEY believe race is a factor. (Again... just silly pal.)
As a side note, I'm gratified that HuffPost covered the supervisor angle. (Was that before or after "Pundit" did?) In either case... it's DISGUSTING that the MAINSTREAM MEDIA didn't report it first.
Nice chat! If you don't respond I'll simply assume you're too busy at work. (WHICH WOULD BE TRUE, FOLKS... my buddy Rob is a BUSY guy! If he wasn't he'd go toe to toe with me all day!)
Post a Comment