From Forbes:
Housing In 2015: Consumers Upbeat, But Recovery Faces A Tricky Handoff
What does 2015 have in store for the housing market? Nine years after the housing bubble peaked and three years after home prices bottomed, the boom and bust still cast a long shadow. None of the five measures we track in our Housing Barometer is back to normal yet, though three are getting close. The rebound effect drove the recovery after the bust, but is now fading. Prices are no longer significantly undervalued and investor demand is falling. Ideally, strong economic and demographic fundamentals like job growth and household formation would take up the slack. But the virtuous cycle of gains in jobs and housing is relatively weak, and that will slow the recovery in 2015.
…
Consumers are as optimistic about the housing market as at any point since the recovery started. Nearly three-quarters — 74% — of respondents agreed that home ownership was part of achieving their personal American Dream – the same level as in our 2013 Q4 survey and slightly above the levels of the three previous years. For young adults, the dream has revived: 78% of 18-34 year-olds answered yes to our American Dream question, up from 73% in 2013 Q4 and a low of 65% in 2011 Q3.
…
Furthermore, 93% of young renters plan to buy a home someday. That’s unchanged from 2012 Q4 despite rising home prices and worsening affordability.Which real estate activities do consumers think will improve in 2015? All of them – but especially selling. Fully 36% said 2015 will be much or a little better than 2014 for selling a home. Just 16% said 2015 will be much or a little worse, a difference of 20 percentage points. The rest of the respondents said 2015 would be neither better nor worse, or weren’t sure. More consumers said 2015 will be better than 2014 for buying too. But the margin over those who said 2015 will be worse was not as wide.
Casino in Newark, what could possibly go wrong?
Question for the attorneys out there, it seems that lately the Federal court system appears to be the new “try again” venue. Don’t like the decision in the local court, we must need a federal investigation. Does this constitute some sort of undermining of authority of the local courts? Traditionally, wouldn’t have these kinds of cases been handled on appeal? No? At what point are the local courts simply going to throw their hands up? I joked yesterday that justice is “getting what you want”. However, in light of the recent activity, it seems that it’s exactly what justice is. Or is this really just some kind of dog and pony show to placate the masses? A shaming of the local courts? I’m just waiting for a local judge to tell the feds to stay the hell out of his or her jurisdiction. Don’t misconstrue this question as me passing judgement on the recent cases, but a broader question about federal overreach.
From the Federal Reserve:
December Beige Book – NY Region
Growth in the Second District’s economy has picked up to a moderate pace since the previous report. Businesses report that cost pressures have abated somewhat, while selling prices are steady to up slightly. Service sector contacts indicate that business has picked up further since the last report, and manufacturers report modest improvement. Labor market conditions have continued to strengthen in recent weeks. General merchandise retailers report that sales have continued to trend up moderately, but auto dealers report that sales softened somewhat. Tourism activity has continued to show strength. Housing markets have shown signs of softening since the last report. Office markets have been generally steady, though the market for industrial space has strengthened. Finally, banks report increased demand for commercial mortgages, narrowing loan spreads for all types of loans, and continued declines in delinquency rates.
…
Construction and Real Estate
The District’s housing markets have taken on a somewhat softer tone in recent weeks. New York City’s residential rental market has shown signs of softening: Rents in Manhattan and Brooklyn are reported to be steady to down slightly from a year ago, though they continue to rise modestly in Queens. Overall, New York City’s co-op and condo market showed continued strength in October and early November–sales activity was down modestly from a year earlier but was still described as brisk, and lean inventories and strong demand continued to nudge up prices, which are reported to be running about 5 percent higher than a year ago. Single-family markets in Long Island and Staten Island–as well as in northern New Jersey, where there remains a large overhang of distressed properties–have lagged somewhat. The Buffalo-area market is characterized as having shifted from a seller’s market to one that is more balanced, with sales activity leveling off and inventories continuing to build. Across New York State more broadly, the median selling price for single-family homes has edged down in recent months and was down slightly in October relative to a year earlier. New single-family construction activity has been sluggish, while multi-family construction has been robust.
Probably the most positive paragraph in the Beige Book this month:
The labor market has continued to strengthen since the last report, with some reports of increased wage pressures. One employment agency contact reports that the labor market seems to be doing well but notes that it is difficult to gauge in light of the slowdown in permanent hiring that usually occurs before the holiday season. This contact also notes that employers are becoming more flexible on salaries and is optimistic about the outlook for 2015. Another major employment agency in New York City describes the job market as exceptionally strong and notes that qualified candidates are getting multiple offers; as a result, employers must often be willing to negotiate on pay and act quickly to fill job openings. In particular, financial firms are reported to be hiring more workers. One employment industry contact construes that retailers are hiring more seasonal help than last year, though a major retail chain indicates that it plans to hire about the same amount of seasonal help as in 2013. More generally, considerably more business contacts now say they plan to expand than reduce staffing levels in the year ahead.
[2] grim,
Man, how much time do you have? Whole courses are dedicated to this.
More when Im not on an iPad
Ok, so I’m not completely off the wall.
[6] grim,
Hell, no
I’d imagine for a lay person to have noticed it, it’s got to be an issue. Frankly, it seems that this does no good at all, instead further polarizing and politicizing the situation.
From MarketWatch:
Challenger reports employers announced 36,000 layoffs in November
Announced layoffs dropped to about 36,000 in November, pulling back from a surge in October, according to data released Thursday by outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Led by job cuts in the consumer-products industry, November’s announced layoffs were down 30% from 51,000 in October and 21% from 45,000 announced cuts in November 2013. Employers have announced about 451,000 cuts this year, down 6% from the same period in 2013. This year’s jobs cuts are on track to hit the lowest annual total since 1997.
Next thing there will be a World Court……
Your ignorance of the 250 years of lives devastated by local fiat is impressive so it doesn’t surprise that you perpetuate a wilfull ignorance of the court system. In “recent activity” as you call it, grand juries made decisions on whether or not to take cases to court. That means they have not yet become court cases and therefore are not subject to appeal. The only recourse for potential wrongdoing, like providing the grand jury with unconstitutional jury instructions as was the documented case in Ferguson, is to go the “administrative route” of a federal investigation. Especially when the locals are uninterested in challenging their “processes”. I wonder if that dim bulb Comrade knows the difference between a jury and a grand jury.
“Question for the attorneys out there, it seems that lately the Federal court system appears to be the new “try again” venue. Don’t like the decision in the local court, we must need a federal investigation. Does this constitute some sort of undermining of authority of the local courts? Traditionally, wouldn’t have these kinds of cases been handled on appeal? No? At what point are the local courts simply going to throw their hands up? I joked yesterday that justice is “getting what you want”. However, in light of the recent activity, it seems that it’s exactly what justice is. Or is this really just some kind of dog and pony show to placate the masses? A shaming of the local courts? I’m just waiting for a local judge to tell the feds to stay the hell out of his or her jurisdiction. Don’t misconstrue this question as me passing judgement on the recent cases, but a broader question about federal overreach.”
It was clear that the feds needed to be involved in civil rights cases back in the 1960s as the local jurisdictions certainly protected their own….see Mississippi,….it is unfortunate if the situation has not improved in 50 years…
Was always under the impression that the broad criticisms of the Grand Jury were entirely the opposite of what you’ve just presented, and have centered upon misuse of the broad powers to subpoena information and testimony, coupled with the fact that the Grand Jury process is heavily biased towards the prosecution, which means it is never in the favor of the defense. Like I said, I’m no lawyer, but how I understand it, the defense is not even permitted to take part in the proceedings. Does a Grand Jury even need a unanimous vote to indict? Doesn’t the prosecutor have the ability to overturn a Grand Jury decision and take the case to trial anyway? How high is the bar?
like providing the grand jury with unconstitutional jury instructions as was the documented case in Ferguson
Can you go into more detail on this? I’m not an expert on constitutional law either, but the statement is intriguing.
Here’s a funny two-fer. 4 EMS Workers Suspended Without Pay in Chokehold Arrest , but the video is from another story about one of RFK’s sons being a typical Kennedy d1ckhead. He tried to take his newborn out of the maternity ward to go for a walk outside just because he felt like it. Just like the Busch family gives their newborns beer at birth, the Kennedys probably have a tradition of using their infants as footballs or something.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Staten-Island-Chokehold-Arrest-Death-Staten-Island-Eric-Garner-Video-NYPD-267913291.html
We need a little more law and a little less justice.
Fcuk “fair”. Most outcomes in life aren’t fair, and then you die. Don’t go to court looking for fair.
Best justice out there is still the kind you dispense at the business end of a trusty firearm.
how many constitutional lawyers frequent this board?
the one most vocal here dodge his taxes as soon as he got his degree.
grim says:
December 4, 2014 at 6:05 am
Question for the attorneys
The point I keep hearing, and one I’m inclined to agree with, is that the local prosecutor should not be the person pursuing an indictment when it comes to cases where police have been accused of a crime. All day long local cops hand him cases where they work together and arrest and prosecute criminals. Suddenly he’s asked to pursue an indictment for somebody he works with? He’s only human and most likely will not pursue and indictment of a police officer with as much vigor as he does the common street criminal. I’m only a layman, but this seems like a conflict of interest and not the best way to acheive justice.
The question I have is why the hell is selling someone a cigarette an arrestable offense? Or did his non cooperation escalate the situation?
As for the grand jury itself they probably decided that guy’s health was the culprit. That takedown was not lethal.
@CNBC: The Dow is now within less than 90 points of 18,000 following its 33rd record close of 2014
19 – Yet the medical examiner ruled Garner’s death a homicide…..
18 – Sure, I think that’s a logical approach, if it eliminates the perception of bias it’s positive, but it brings the question of who? The neighboring county? State AG? I don’t for one second believe it should immediately become a Federal case. It doesn’t entirely eliminate the problem either, to some extent it simply shifts it.
For example, what if this case was shifted to the neighboring county, which was predominantly white upper class? What then?
@MotherJones: WATCH: Rep. Peter King blames chokehold death on Eric Garner’s “obesity”
#21
How though, from what? The chokehold which was broken after they hit the ground or by all of them subduing the guy?
If it’s the latter then it certainly becomes murky in terms of an indictment.
22 – The possibility for bias was so blatently obvious in the Garner case. At least have the governor appoint a special prosecutor for it. (I heard this suggested on the radio) : Maybe somebody who’se been a prosecutor early in their career and is now a practicing defense attorney?
[18] That’s why they have a grand jury. If you examine all of the grand jury testimony and evidence it is so obvious that the “unarmed black teenager” was actually an “unsuccessfully armed 290 pound violent felon attempting murder”. In the video of “Staten Island Married Father of Six” Eric Garner, it’s obvious he was communicating in a very animated fashion that he was not going to cooperate, not going to be searched, and not going to be arrested. Michael Brown died because he violently resisted. Eric Garner died because his health was not up to any physical resistance. Don’t resist = Don’t die in both cases.
The point I keep hearing, and one I’m inclined to agree with, is that the local prosecutor should not be the person pursuing an indictment when it comes to cases where police have been accused of a crime. All day long local cops hand him cases where they work together and arrest and prosecute criminals. Suddenly he’s asked to pursue an indictment for somebody he works with? He’s only human and most likely will not pursue and indictment of a police officer with as much vigor as he does the common street criminal. I’m only a layman, but this seems like a conflict of interest and not the best way to acheive justice.
Why not just make it illegal to arrest anyone that does not willfully submit to arrest. Mandate stand-down policies for all police in situations where are suspect attempts to fight back or in any way evade arrest. If a suspect fights, runs, or in any way resists, they must be let go. Instead, simply hold a special grand jury where the end result is the issuance of an optional warrant for the suspect to turn themselves in to the authorities if they are so willing.
@MMFlint: Because we’ve come so far. R.I.P. Eric Garner- ur crime was that u were selling untaxed cigarettes instead of derivatives & junk mortgages
[27] 10 or more years ago when news stories started to surface about police departments nixing high speed pursuits my thought was, “Fcuk, I wish that was the policy when I was in my teens and twenties. I probably wouldn’t even have license plates on my car after dark.”
Luge [16];
Funny, I would have phrased it the other way around — that we need a lot less “law” and a little more “justice”. But like was posted yesterday, the word “justice” has been thoroughly perverted by the left. See, SJW.
#28
Finally idiot you’ve identified the injustice. It’s not racial or police brutality, it’s purely class based and political.
Why the hell was this guy arrested in the first place? Because he didn’t cooperate, or because the smokes weren’t stamped, or because he didn’t have a peddler license?
Forget about the Brown or the Garner case for a second.
I’m only suggesting that if a police officer is accused of committing a crime in the line of duty…especially in high profile cases, that his indictment not be pursued by the prosecutor he works with everyday.
And we’re talking about an indictment here…not a trial.
The Original NJ ExPat – Bow Down to the King says:
December 4, 2014 at 8:50 am
[18] That’s why they have a grand jury. If you examine all of the grand jury testimony and evidence it is so obvious that the “unarmed black teenager” was actually an “unsuccessfully armed 290 pound violent felon attempting murder”. In the video of “Staten Island Married Father of Six” Eric Garner, it’s obvious he was communicating in a very animated fashion that he was not going to cooperate, not going to be searched, and not going to be arrested. Michael Brown died because he violently resisted. Eric Garner died because his health was not up to any physical resistance. Don’t resist = Don’t die in both cases.
32 – Like it or not, the prosecutor position is a political one. Would this not apply to any potential indictment of a public sector employee or elected official within their jurisdiction?
Perhaps prosecutors should all be randomly assigned in these situations?
Elitists love cigarette taxes. Mastermind economists congratulate themselves by fixing “market externalities”.
I say throw out this collectivistic mindset and ask the government to focus on doing its one key task right: protect individual rights.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but no one is arguing is that the justice system violated any procedures or laws in these cases, correct?
It is being argued that:
1) There may be a conflict of interest between the prosecutor and the police, but one that is currently permissible by law
2) Procedural events in the grand jury occurred as they should, however the verdict reached by the citizens selected, essentially our peers, was wrong?
Perhaps if one cleans up ones neighborhood and raises their children with sound guidance and discipline it may be a good start? How come the so-called community “leaders” aren’t preaching this idea endlessly?
editorial
“That image was captured on bystander video and later presented as irrefutable evidence of an “illegal” chokehold and, therefore, grounds for a criminal indictment against the cop.
That charge fails, and here’s why.”
Eric Garner and Michael Brown had much in common, not the least of which was this: On the last day of their lives, they made bad decisions. Epically bad decisions.
Each broke the law — petty offenses, to be sure, but sufficient to attract the attention of the police.
And then — tragically, stupidly, fatally, inexplicably — each fought the law.
The law won, of course, as it almost always does.
This was underscored yet again Wednesday when a Staten Island grand jury chose not to indict any of the arresting officers in the death in police custody of Garner last July.
Just as a grand jury last week declined to indict the police officer who shot a violently resisting Michael Brown to death in Ferguson, Mo., in August.
Demagoguery rises to an art form in such cases — because, again, the police generally win. (Though not always, as a moment’s reflection before the Police Memorial in lower Manhattan will underscore.) And because those who advocate for cop-fighters are so often such accomplished beguilers.
They cast these tragedies as, if not outright murder, then invincible evidence of an enduringly racist society.
No such thing, as a matter of fact. Virtually always, these cases represent sad, low-impact collisions of cops and criminals — routine in every respect except for an outlier conclusion.
The Garner case is textbook.
Eric Garner was a career petty criminal who’d experienced dozens of arrests, but had learned nothing from them. He was on the street July 17, selling untaxed cigarettes one at a time — which, as inconsequential as it seems, happens to be a crime.
Yet another arrest was under way when, suddenly, Garner balked. “This ends here,” he shouted — as it turned out, tragically prophetic words — as he began struggling with the arresting officer.
Again, this was a bad decision. Garner suffered from a range of medical ailments — advanced diabetes, plus heart disease and asthma so severe that either malady might have killed him, it was said at the time.
Still, he fought — and at one point during the struggle, a cop wrapped his arm around Garner’s neck.
That image was captured on bystander video and later presented as irrefutable evidence of an “illegal” chokehold and, therefore, grounds for a criminal indictment against the cop.
That charge fails, and here’s why.
First, while “chokeholds” are banned by NYPD regulation, they’re not illegal under state law when used by a cop during a lawful arrest. So much for criminal charges, given that nobody seriously disputes the legitimacy of the arrest.
Second, and this speaks to the ubiquitous allegation that cops are treated “differently” than ordinary citizens in deadly-force cases: Indeed they are — and it is the law itself that confers the privilege.
The law gives cops the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the good-faith performance of their duties — and who would really have it any other way?
Cops who need to worry about whether the slightest mishap — a minor misunderstanding that escalates to violence of any sort — might result in criminal charges and a prison term are not cops who are going to put the public’s interests first.
Finally, there is this: There were 228,000 misdemeanor arrests in New York City in 2013, the last year for which there are audited figures, and every one of them had at least the potential to turn into an Eric Garner-like case.
None did.
So much for the “out of control” cop trope. So much for the notion that everyday citizens — or even criminals with the presence of mind to keep their hands to themselves — have something to fear from the NYPD.
Keep this in mind as the rhetoric fogs the facts in the hours and days ahead.
For there are many New Yorkers — politicians, activists, trial lawyers, all the usual suspects — who will now seek to profit from a tragedy that wouldn’t have happened had Eric Garner made a different decision.
He was a victim of himself. It’s just that simple.
ChiFi,
That was a great article you posted last night in the other thread.
Michael Brown’s stepdad charged with inciting a riot.
I’m not saying this was the case for either Brown or Garner, but if the police are attempting to arrest you and charge you with a crime that is either a violation of your civil rights or unconstitutional, do you have a right to resist?
Today in History (1991)… Charles Keating, kingpin of S&L crisis, convicted on 17 charges of California state securities fraud.
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators – Alan Cranston (Democrat of California), Dennis DeConcini (Democrat of Arizona), John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio), John McCain (Republican of Arizona), and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Democrat of Michigan) – were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
We have created a permanent underclass of citizen that is so useful to so many in the upper classes that there is no consensus desire to do anything other than continue to grow it. The underclass is a source of cheap labor, a market for overpriced food, necessities, liquor and illegal dr0gs. It is also a powerful voting bloc that can be counted on to deliver lots of votes in exchange for trinkets, handouts and low-level patronage.
Most of these people are totally fuct and actually revel in it, so no sympathy from me.
It certainly might be, but why the hell would you? The arresting officer isn’t in a position to judge the merits of your constitutional rights, and even worse, they may be enacting an arrest for a crime that they didn’t witness (arresting someone for an outstanding warrant, etc etc). What about an arrest made in error? You can’t hold the police officer guilty of trying to enact some sort of unlawful arrest in that case. Besides, resisting arrest is generally viewed, perceptually, as a sign of guilt – why else would you run?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5owxVEHobvY#t=610
Almost as bad as police investigating themselves. Or a panel of lawyers deciding if their colleague broke some of their self-developed rules (judges too).
Toxic Crayons says:
December 4, 2014 at 8:31 am
The point I keep hearing, and one I’m inclined to agree with, is that the local prosecutor should not be the person pursuing an indictment when it comes to cases where police have been accused of a crime. All day long local cops hand him cases where they work together and arrest and prosecute criminals. Suddenly he’s asked to pursue an indictment for somebody he works with? He’s only human and most likely will not pursue and indictment of a police officer with as much vigor as he does the common street criminal. I’m only a layman, but this seems like a conflict of interest and not the best way to acheive justice.
Perhaps, they could have written Eric Gardner a ticket.
The Original NJ ExPat – Bow Down to the King says:
December 4, 2014 at 8:50 am
[11] & [17] Ottoman & anon: Was there a snark amplifier door-buster sale at Best Buy? Both out of the gate today with snark turned up to 11.
grim,
Considering 99.9999999999% of the laws we have are for bullsh!t non-violent behavior… that will work just fine.
grim says:
December 4, 2014 at 8:50 am
Why not just make it illegal to arrest anyone that does not willfully submit to arrest. Mandate stand-down policies for all police in situations where are suspect attempts to fight back or in any way evade arrest. If a suspect fights, runs, or in any way resists, they must be let go. Instead, simply hold a special grand jury where the end result is the issuance of an optional warrant for the suspect to turn themselves in to the authorities if they are so willing.
MSNBC host and former ad exec Donny Deutsch scammed a real estate broker out of a $1.2 million commission in the sale of Deutsch’s $30 million Hamptons home, a Manhattan judge seethes in new court papers.
Justice Charles Ramos says Deutsch’s lawyer was acting on his client’s behalf when Sotheby’s broker Edward Petrie was schemed out of his 4 percent commission, The Post’s Julia Marsh reports.
Petrie had brought a potential buyer, LA hedge funder Howard Marks, by Deutsch’s Tyson Lane home in 2010.
After Deutsch realized he knew Marks, he went behind Petrie’s back and brokered the sale privately to avoid the fee, Petrie claimed.
“This court considers that and refusal to acknowledge [Petrie] as the broker to be marks of dishonesty and greed,” Ramos writes in the Oct. 23 decision awarding Petrie’s employer, Sotheby’s, $1.2 million.
Damn I know smoking kills but these officers are being super aggressive in preventing it. Shouldn’t they at least wait until the potential victim has light the cigarette?
[46] joyce:
1. In January 2014, tough new penalties for selling un-taxed cigarettes took effect in New York City. In July, emboldened by the new law, the city’s highest-ranking uniformed cop, Philip Banks, issued an order to crack down on loosie sales days before Garner died.
2. Garner had been arrested eight times for selling “loosies.”
AHB,
I would say (which is my main point when bringing up similar stories) that yes the system worked the way it’s been perverted to work. (and yes conflict of interests abound everywhere in these cases). But to your second point, I don’t believe for one second that Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor’s Office, etc treat these incidents the same way as they do for others cases. So I would agree with #1 and disagree with #2.
A Home Buyer says:
December 4, 2014 at 9:35 am
Correct me if I am mistaken, but no one is arguing is that the justice system violated any procedures or laws in these cases, correct?
It is being argued that:
1) There may be a conflict of interest between the prosecutor and the police, but one that is currently permissible by law
2) Procedural events in the grand jury occurred as they should, however the verdict reached by the citizens selected, essentially our peers, was wrong?
[17] anon
“the one most vocal here dodge his taxes as soon as he got his degree.”
Not true, I started long before that.
Rags [34];
Remember that the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (and for entertainment value, take a look at how states have spent their spoils — big hint: it wasn’t on anything ‘health-related’ for its citizens. Many states bonded the revenue stream to spend a fraction of that money now and pay all of it later, i.e., they’ve already spent 30 years worth of billions of dollars.)… but I digress…
Remember the logic of the settlement was that the states paid for the medicare coverage of poor people who got sick. That was the “damages” that tobacco companies were supposedly reimbursing. In no other tort case would that theory of damages fly. A [private] plaintiff can never claim as damages a burden that they voluntarily assumed.
Law? Forget that, Jake, this is Chinatown.
http://www.propublica.org/article/tobacco-settlement-funds-sprinklers-golf-carts-and-a-grease-trap
[49] Why didn’t Deutsch just wait for the listing to expire? When my inlaws sold their 2nd Glen Rock house the realtor showed another Glen Rock resident the house who made an offer, but it wasn’t accepted. When the listing expired my FIL had the guy who made the offer put on the exclusion list when he re-upped with the same agent. The guy ended up raising his offer and buying the house and the realtor got nothing. I didn’t think that was too nice, but it was legal.
[11] ottoman,
“knows the difference between a jury and a grand jury.”
Sure, a jury is 12 people and a grand jury is 1,000 people. Right?
[yeah, I know, not that witty but I’ve a raging headache and he isn’t giving me much to work with]
55 – I know it typically only applies between agents, but wouldn’t the concept of Procuring Cause still apply? What if the seller willingly allowed the contract to run out, and turned down other offers in the interim? Obviously going to depend on the terms as spelled out in the listing agreement.
As New Yorkers take stock of a grand jury decision not to indict a police officer for the choking death of a suspect, news has slipped under the radar that there was one person who was indicted for his actions during last July’s fatal arrest attempt. The man who took the famous video of the incident was indicted on charges of illegal possession of a pistol.
On Wednesday evening, a New York grand jury announced that it was not going to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo for the July death of the 350-pound, six-foot-three Eric Garner. Garner died after the officer used a choke hold to subdue him.
Another man was also present that day and he used his cell phone to video the officers as they tried to arrest Garner.
Ramsey Orta, Garner’s associate, was on hand when the officers made their attempt to arrest Garner for selling illegal cigarettes. After the incident with Garner, police also detained Orta, saying he had an illegal .25 caliber pistol on his person when they arrived on the scene.
Police said Orta slipped the illegal gun into the waistband of a teen standing near the scene of the altercation before he took out his cell phone to record Garner’s arrest.
Orta was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a weapon after Garner’s failed arrest.
In his own defense, Orta claimed that the police filed false gun charges against him because they were upset that his film of Garner’s death became national news. A New York grand jury, however, discounted Orta’s claims and indicted him on one felony count each of third-degree criminal weapon possession and criminal firearm possession.
#51
Exactly what I suspected, a bureaucrat is to blame but the mob is out targeting the street cops.
Same thing happened with OWS when the mob targeted the financial services workers instead of the regulators and politicians who turned a blind eye.
It’s a shame that such a large segment of the polulation can manipulated so easily.
First, while “chokeholds” are banned by NYPD regulation, they’re not illegal under state law when used by a cop during a lawful arrest. So much for criminal charges, given that nobody seriously disputes the legitimacy of the arrest.
(Is this author saying that cops can choke to the point of killing and the NYS law grants them that privilege?)
Second, and this speaks to the ubiquitous allegation that cops are treated “differently” than ordinary citizens in deadly-force cases: Indeed they are — and it is the law itself that confers the privilege.
(Glad he fell bass-ackwards onto the problem)
The law gives cops the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the good-faith performance of their duties — and who would really have it any other way?
(People with a brain)
Cops who need to worry about whether the slightest mishap — a minor misunderstanding that escalates to violence of any sort — might result in criminal charges and a prison term are not cops who are going to put the public’s interests first.
(PLEASE The system the author advocates is in place. And guess what? They don’t put others’ interests first. They put themselves first. Officer Safety. “I’m going home at the end of my shift no matter what.”
Keep this in mind as the rhetoric fogs the facts in the hours and days ahead.
For there are many New Yorkers — politicians, activists, trial lawyers, all the usual suspects — who will now seek to profit from a tragedy
(Can’t argue with that)
that wouldn’t have happened had Eric Garner made a different decision.
(Or a number of other people)
He was a victim of himself. It’s just that simple.
(He was a victim of horrific government that make criminals out of everyone, that intentionally hire stupid people who won’t question the orders they’re given).
Expat,
My response was more about the goons in costumes that are hyper-aggressive when confronting an unarmed person suspected of a non-violent crime.
The Original NJ ExPat – Bow Down to the King says:
December 4, 2014 at 10:35 am
[46] joyce:
1. In January 2014, tough new penalties for selling un-taxed cigarettes took effect in New York City. In July, emboldened by the new law, the city’s highest-ranking uniformed cop, Philip Banks, issued an order to crack down on loosie sales days before Garner died.
2. Garner had been arrested eight times for selling “loosies.”
I agree; but wouldn’t you say in your two examples that multiple parties shared blame?
nwnj says:
December 4, 2014 at 10:49 am
#51
Exactly what I suspected, a bureaucrat is to blame but the mob is out targeting the street cops.
Same thing happened with OWS when the mob targeted the financial services workers instead of the regulators and politicians who turned a blind eye.
It’s a shame that such a large segment of the polulation can manipulated so easily.
Hypothetical.
Police stop a suspect on suspicion of committing a crime, but ultimately let him go. Let’s keep it that simple.
10 minutes later, the suspect shoots and kills a mother and baby.
Are the police liable?
TC – Maybe I misunderstand the grand jury process. My take is that it is not an impassioned competition to “win” an indictment or an incomplete and lackluster performance to “not win” an indictment, but rather a show and tell of every iota of evidence available plus jury instructions on how to decide. In a trial lawyers can choose what to introduce and what not to introduce as well as offer theories to the jurors. I don’t think there is problem with the current system nor would it be very prudent to have a “Rat Squad” prosecutor sitting on the bench waiting for his big moment. I guess you could make a case for itinerant prosecutors who just go from venue to venue presenting evidence that was gathered in their absence, but I’m not sure that would work any better because then you have to worry about the gatherers of the evidence not being supervised appropriately.
Forget about the Brown or the Garner case for a second.
I’m only suggesting that if a police officer is accused of committing a crime in the line of duty…especially in high profile cases, that his indictment not be pursued by the prosecutor he works with everyday.
[63] I think in the current climate the police are liable for everything, even when they are asleep at home in their beds. “Stop the War on the Poor”
They use that excuse all the time to arrest out of staters who have no hope of understanding NJ’s nonsensical gun laws, on gun possession charges.
grim says:
December 4, 2014 at 11:00 am
Hypothetical.
Police stop a suspect on suspicion of committing a crime, but ultimately let him go. Let’s keep it that simple.
10 minutes later, the suspect shoots and kills a mother and baby.
Are the police liable?
Arm the Baby.
If police see someone they think just committed a crime, chase them but don’t catch them… 10 minutes later that suspect kills someone. Are the police liable?
I’m 100% in favor of changing the way some people “hit the lottery”. Using these two examples of Brown and Gardner, the government is saying the police didn’t commit any crimes nor did they do anything else wrong. So there is no wrongful death (yet we both know millions will be paid to both families).
If I had ANY confidence in the legitimacy of the investigations, those families shouldn’t get a cent. Even as it stands today, they shouldn’t get a cent from the towns… but from the people who caused the deaths.
In all seriousness, It’s my understanding that the police have no (legal) duty to protect. Heck they don’t even have to stop somebody from actively committing assault.
http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/
grim says:
December 4, 2014 at 11:00 am
Hypothetical.
Police stop a suspect on suspicion of committing a crime, but ultimately let him go. Let’s keep it that simple.
10 minutes later, the suspect shoots and kills a mother and baby.
Are the police liable?
Joyce – The unarmed person would be the 400 lb man flailing his giant unarms around while telling the police they have no jurisdiction when it comes to what he’s doing? And is selling cigarettes non-violent? What if he is selling them to minors? What if he also sells heroin or bullets out of his other pocket, just leave the poor big guy alone?
Expat,
My response was more about the goons in costumes that are hyper-aggressive when confronting an unarmed person suspected of a non-violent crime.
[61] Joyce
They had dangerous cigarettes on them AND they resisted arrest! Darren Wilson even stated he felt like a 5 year old child holding onto Hulk Hogan. What jobs out there would be appropriate for a 5 year old. And Garner had a few loosies on him, even if I had 7 other buddies with me who had guns, I would feel like I’m in danger too.
Unlike Hinckley who just shot President Reagan, he gets taken down to stand trial without a shot fired. Or McVeigh who bombed a little building in OK, and was stopped by an officer who noticed he may have a weapon on his waist side, was able to stand trial without a shot fired.
Is the NYPD required to protect you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZKVSNjlSp0
I guess every time a cop pulls over someone who has big muscles and looks strong they should include in their department policy to demand them out of the car and have them lay prone on the ground until the stop is over. Hey, you never know. Better to be safe than sorry.
Why don’t you tell me what you think is violent about selling cigarettes? And did you really just pull out “what about the children”?
The Original NJ ExPat – Bow Down to the King says:
December 4, 2014 at 11:15 am
Joyce – The unarmed person would be the 400 lb man flailing his giant unarms around while telling the police they have no jurisdiction when it comes to what he’s doing? And is selling cigarettes non-violent? What if he is selling them to minors? What if he also sells heroin or bullets out of his other pocket, just leave the poor big guy alone?
Market Ticker
Respect the Process?
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229636
I have long believed that in general one should respect the process of the law even when the result isn’t what you believe should have occurred; after all none of us are omniscient. But the recent perversion not once but twice when it comes to cops killing civilians has shaken my belief in that precept to the core, bringing it dangerously close to rupture.
In Ferguson the issue became race on both sides; those supporting the cop essentially retreated to the argument that he was a thug (not being willing to simply call him a ****** any more, you see — now we have a kinder, gentler form of racism — right?) while those demanding a trial simply played the whitey shot black man card.
Nobody, with the exception of this site and, believe it or not, one particular thread on Daily Kos, have examined the actual issue — the fact that the physical evidence did not support the police officer’s narrative — not originally, not as the case developed and not in the Grand Jury testimony.
Further, there is plenty of hard, documentary evidence of intentionally false instructions being given to the Grand Jury — specifically, the standard for the use of deadly force by officers was presented to them as the pre-Supreme Court decision in 1985 (Tennessee .v. Garner) on shooting fleeing felons. The Grand Jury was instructed that this was permissible when in fact this has not been for 30 years. That’s not an accident, it is intentional and willful misconduct on the part of the authorities. Were you or I to give an intentionally false presentation to a Grand Jury we’d find ourselves in prison and with good cause. The Prosecutor will not face that same punishment, yet it was a direct and proximate cause of the no-bill decision.
But now we have the NYC case in which there was a refusal to indict as well — and this is even more outrageous as the conduct in question, a police choke-hold that was found by the medical examiner to be the cause of death as he ruled it a homicide is a banned practice in most police departments — including in NYC.
So here we have a cop who engaged in a practice specifically prohibited to him on a suspect who had committed no violent offense (he was accused of illegally reselling cigarettes) and that practice was the direct and proximate cause of the suspect’s death.
Yet he too was not indicted.
Folks, you are the check and balance on this sort of horse**** as you sit in the Grand Jury rooms. You decide.
And what you, I, and everyone else is compelled to decide is that the police are not to be given deference. At all. Ever. Nor are the prosecutors. They may not be presumed to be telling the truth in either Grand Jury rooms or during trials as we now have one case in which we know the prosecutor factually lied to the Grand Jury and a second in which a banned practice did not result in an immediate felony arrest for assault, irrespective of Grand Jury proceedings.
It’s time for a change, and the change starts with you.
The audio recording of the Michael Brown shooting proves Darren Wilson’s story is false
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/01/1348720/-The-audio-recording-of-the-Michael-Brown-shooting-proves-Darren-Wilson-s-story-is-false?detail=email#
I don’t understand what is the issue with the Rams players holding their hands up. They were showing the proper way to communicate to officers to not shot. Everyone knows you should not resist arrest.
This technique was properly utilized by the Aurora movie theater shooter, who just killed 12 ppl and wounded another 59. He was able to peacefully taken into custody by simply raising his hands.
In all seriousness, It’s my understanding that the police have no (legal) duty to protect. Heck they don’t even have to stop somebody from actively committing assault.
It wouldn’t be a “duty to protect” issue at all? Wouldn’t it be a negligence issue?
That sound reasonable, except the realtor de facto agreed to risk losing the commission by allowing the buyer to be added to the exclusion list of the 2nd listing. As it was 20 years ago, I may not have all the facts straight. It’s possible that the buyer made an offer even before the first listing. The sad part for the realtor was that she produced another buyer but the first guy didn’t want to lose the house so he topped the 2nd buyer’s offer. The family that bought still lives there. Well the husband and wife do, anyway.
55 – I know it typically only applies between agents, but wouldn’t the concept of Procuring Cause still apply? What if the seller willingly allowed the contract to run out, and turned down other offers in the interim? Obviously going to depend on the terms as spelled out in the listing agreement.
[63] grim,
Your hypo isn’t so simple. You have implicated reasonable suspicion, probable cause, police procedures, and negligence concepts. Not to mention the distinction and interplay of common law, state statutes, and US constitutional law (which at least one person here says I am in no position to discuss even though I aced all of my undergrad and law school courses on the subject). Pages in law school exams are written on precisely those facts.
But in general, your hypo reminded me of this seminal case in Massachusetts, which did find police liable for releasing a drunk driver:
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/392/392mass745.html
Ahhhhh have to love the youngsters today. I remember those days of doing stupid stuff as a teenager, shrugging it off and laughing with friends about it.
#Crimingwhilewhite: White people are confessing on Twitter to crimes they got away with
At 13 I stole a car with my friends & drove it 2wks before we got busted. Only one charged was black. #CrimingWhileWhite — Cecily Kellogg (@Cecilyk) December 4, 2014
I shoplifted when I was 14 and they let me go because my parents came down and we “looked like a nice family.” #crimingwhilewhite — Joel Watson (@hijinksensue) December 4, 2014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/04/crimingwhilewhite-white-people-are-confessing-on-twitter-to-crimes-they-got-away-with/
I’d wager a bet that 99 times out of 100 the agent doesn’t take it to court, and the vast majority of the 1/100 cases are two brokerages fighting for commission already paid, and not involving the seller at all. Errr… arbitration in the latter case more likely.
However, in this case, there is real money on the line. “Real Money” is defined by the amount of saliva generated in the prospective attorney’s mouth after hearing the story.
79 – I wanted to make the point that an officer diffusing a situation and walking away wasn’t without both risk to a bystander and subsequent legal action against the officer for doing exactly that.
I can just imagine the barrage of triple digit lawsuits against local police for negligence. Lest I remind everyone of the $165 million dollar judgement against the State of NJ for DYFS acting in a negligent manner and being liable for a crime committed after the fact. A father beats his son to the point of brain damage, and NJ is held liable.
” even though I aced all of my undergrad and law school courses on the subject). Pages in law school exams are written on precisely those facts.”
You’ve said multiple times that law school and being a lawyer have nothing to do with each other.
jj: check this out b!tch….
Transocean Inc
Baa3/BBB- Rated (Neg/Neg)
2.5% Coupon
10/15/17 Maturity
500m Available (min. 20m)
Offered @ 95.99
4.0% Yield to Maturity
*If bond gets downgraded, coupon will step up 25bp for each downgrade
“Ramsey Orta, Garner’s associate”? #1 WTF does this mean?; #2 is it factual or conveniently fabricated?; #3 to the extent that he was in possession of a gun, what would that imply?; #4 let’s see what the grand jury reviewed, because it sounds as if there was a backstory here……
Also, we are not discussing ONE officer…..there were FOUR guys here…..
Toxic Crayons says:
December 4, 2014 at 10:48 am
As New Yorkers take stock of a grand jury decision not to indict a police officer for the choking death of a suspect, news has slipped under the radar that there was one person who was indicted for his actions during last July’s fatal arrest attempt. The man who took the famous video of the incident was indicted on charges of illegal possession of a pistol.
On Wednesday evening, a New York grand jury announced that it was not going to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo for the July death of the 350-pound, six-foot-three Eric Garner. Garner died after the officer used a choke hold to subdue him.
Another man was also present that day and he used his cell phone to video the officers as they tried to arrest Garner.
Ramsey Orta, Garner’s associate, was on hand when the officers made their attempt to arrest Garner for selling illegal cigarettes. After the incident with Garner, police also detained Orta, saying he had an illegal .25 caliber pistol on his person when they arrived on the scene.
Police said Orta slipped the illegal gun into the waistband of a teen standing near the scene of the altercation before he took out his cell phone to record Garner’s arrest.
Orta was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a weapon after Garner’s failed arrest.
In his own defense, Orta claimed that the police filed false gun charges against him because they were upset that his film of Garner’s death became national news. A New York grand jury, however, discounted Orta’s claims and indicted him on one felony count each of third-degree criminal weapon possession and criminal firearm possession.
[83] joyce,
True enough. Was there a point you were trying to make?
Nothing for nothing, this is what I have been saying. I have been talking to lots of people and conditions are improving dramatically. Bring on that wage inflation baby. Should be here by 2017.
grim says:
December 4, 2014 at 6:11 am
Probably the most positive paragraph in the Beige Book this month:
The labor market has continued to strengthen since the last report, with some reports of increased wage pressures. One employment agency contact reports that the labor market seems to be doing well but notes that it is difficult to gauge in light of the slowdown in permanent hiring that usually occurs before the holiday season. This contact also notes that employers are becoming more flexible on salaries and is optimistic about the outlook for 2015. Another major employment agency in New York City describes the job market as exceptionally strong and notes that qualified candidates are getting multiple offers; as a result, employers must often be willing to negotiate on pay and act quickly to fill job openings. In particular, financial firms are reported to be hiring more workers. One employment industry contact construes that retailers are hiring more seasonal help than last year, though a major retail chain indicates that it plans to hire about the same amount of seasonal help as in 2013. More generally, considerably more business contacts now say they plan to expand than reduce staffing levels in the year ahead.
87- The great pumpkin is coming!!!!
Joyce. What are you saying? You know more than him. Tell me then, who knows more than an attorney on this subject matter?
Grim, if you see my last post, my response to Chicagofinance, would you please unmod it?
85 –
I just find it amusing that he’ll be going to jail for doing something that’s perfectly legal in the vast majority of the United States.
Also, some might call it another conflict of interest…some might not, but the same prosecutor who is supposed to ask for an indictment of the police officers is also pursuing one for his star witness?
chicagofinance says:
December 4, 2014 at 12:21 pm
“Ramsey Orta, Garner’s associate”? #1 WTF does this mean?; #2 is it factual or conveniently fabricated?; #3 to the extent that he was in possession of a gun, what would that imply?; #4 let’s see what the grand jury reviewed, because it sounds as if there was a backstory here……
nevermind, I got it through by removing the link.
I have an easy answer for the courts. Simplify the law code. Any crime is punishable by death. Selling illegal cigs…dead. Selling drugs…dead. Attacking an officer…dead. You could say that innocent people will be killed by corrupt police, but I disagree. Would you be a corrupt police officer if the crime is punishable by death? American laws are not for justice, they are there to make money. Either by making something illegal, but the punishment is a joke(cue white collar crimes). Of course a company will take a risk if the punishment (the fine) is less than the profit made off the crime. Or by using a law to straight up scam an individual out of money. That list of examples can go on and on.
Btw, the Chinese communists solved their countries opium problem by lining up anyone caught using opium, along with their family members, in the village square and killing them. Harsh, but effective. Our country feeds off of drug addicts instead of actually trying to stop it.
Despite what they may think, the role of the police officer is not to cast judgement or carry out a sentence.
I’m intrigued with the level of self-immolation attendent in the very notion of Murica.
[2] grim,
Not enough time or bandwidth to really do this subject justice (pun intended) but here are some things to consider on your questions.
“Question for the attorneys out there, it seems that lately the Federal court system appears to be the new “try again” venue. Don’t like the decision in the local court, we must need a federal investigation.”
This isn’t new. Probably the best example of this is the push by Robert Kennedy’s DoJ to attack Jim Crow laws and discrimination, notably in the south. By pushing the envelope and using federal law to punish things that were not illegal under state law, they were able to create an entire new class of federal offenses that could attack conditions that state laws didn’t.
“Does this constitute some sort of undermining of authority of the local courts?”
No, because you are talking about different laws. A civil rights violation and a murder charge may prosecute the same act, but for different reasons. Courts have long held that there is no double jeopardy either.
“Traditionally, wouldn’t have these kinds of cases been handled on appeal? No? At what point are the local courts simply going to throw their hands up?”
Not sure what you mean here. In criminal, only the defendant has a right of appeal. In civil, the government does as well but that isn’t where you are going. An appeal also suggests a conviction so that isn’t relevant to Garner or Brown. There is no appeal from the decision of a grand jury to issue a no bill. Now, I am not a crim lawyer but in some systems, that doesn’t bind the prosecutor from bringing charges anyway or going back to a grand jury later. I cannot speak for NY or MO grand jury systems. As for local courts simply throwing their hands up, that would be an unheard of abrogation of duty. First, because they try different cases, and second, there is no right of appeal to the federal system except in limited instances (if that is where you are going here).
“I joked yesterday that justice is “getting what you want”. However, in light of the recent activity, it seems that it’s exactly what justice is. Or is this really just some kind of dog and pony show to placate the masses? A shaming of the local courts?”
Yes. This is a much larger discussion, but in some cases, it is definitely a dog and pony show. In fact, the grand jury proceedings in both Garner and Brown were likely the same. There was no way these cases would ever have resulted in convictions at trial under the higher reasonable doubt standard, but the anger (possibly justified) is that the prosecutors seemed to have handed off the cases to the GJs rather than try like hell to get an indictment by presenting only one side (a point that has been attacked in the past by the very sides now attacking the no bills, I might add).
Now, there could be reasons why a prosecutor would do this and the best I can think of is that a GJ proceeding isn’t public so they can never be held to task for the case they tried. Look at the vitriol aimed at the prosecution in Trayvon Martin’s case–I thought they did as good a job as they could with what they had. They had a favorable bench that gave them rulings on evidence I thought wrong, and got away with some prosecutorial misconduct, but they still didn’t get a conviction. So the left accused them of tanking the case. No basis for that but people see what they want to see. So if a prosecutor wants to avoid losing a case they know they can’t win, let it die in the grand jury so they don’t risk losing publicly.
“I’m just waiting for a local judge to tell the feds to stay the hell out of his or her jurisdiction.”
I can’t say that this hasn’t happened but it isn’t the judges who would say that, it’s the lawyers under conflict of law principles.
thank you
Grim [82];
Please don’t confuse anything resembling “law”, fairly and evenly applied, with some committee decision by a group of 12 people who couldn’t get themselves out of jury duty spending OPM from what for all intents and purposes is a bottomless purse.
Just sayin’…
ChiFi [84];
Just have to connect the dots a little bit, and read between the lines. Cops wanted to punish Orta for videoing them killing Garner. The gun, in addition to being illegal, was their excuse. If he was seen passing off the gun to a nearby “teen”, how simple to “stop & frisk” the teen to come up with the gun and arrest everyone. Why then is the teen who was allegedly seen in possession of the gun not charged? (Answer: because he cut a deal, and probably testified against Orta).
On a completely different topic…anyone read the NYTimes article that suggested that Gazprom and Russia were behind anti-fracking protests in Eastern Europe?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/russian-money-suspected-behind-fracking-protests.html?_r=0
[89] Xolepa,
“Tell me then, who knows more than an attorney on this subject matter?”
Joyce’s point may be that not all attorneys are constitutional scholars, nor do they aspire to be. Some have studied Con Law only once, in a required class in law school. Furthermore, there are certainly those individuals who know more about constitutional law, like the professors who teach the attorneys. This guy, for example:
https://polsci.umass.edu/profiles/goldman_sheldon
He isn’t an attorney but I think his credentials speak for themselves. He also gave me three As, two for undergrad courses on Con Law and Civil Liberties, and one for an honors seminar (a grad course but undergrads were allowed by invitation).
I consider myself an attorney AND reasonably well versed in Constitutional Law. Those skills aren’t mutually exclusive.
Toxic [92];
I just find it amusing that he’ll be going to jail for doing something that’s perfectly legal in the vast majority of the United States.
Criminal cases often serve as the springboard for establishing individual rights — because the defendant is accused of violating a law that the court finds was unconstitutional in the first place.
I’d love it if Orta is a name we’ll all come to remember, like “Miranda” or “Brown” (for the slight more wonky, Mapp, Gideon).
[98, 99] Moose
It’s a rare day when I take issue with a post of yours but I have to here, at least in small part:
As for juries, I consider them the best bargain in the judicial system. True, they are laypeople and there is always a risk of emotion overcoming law, or jury nullification, but in so many instances, I see them as people who understand the responsibility put upon them and try their very best to live up to it. Tomorrow, there is a reception for my second judge at her courthouse; they are naming one of the jury rooms after her. This is because she always took a keen interest in the juries’, in their deliberations and their lives. After trials, she would take them into chambers and talk to them to learn more about what they thought and who they were. I sat in sometimes and felt that, regardless of what 12 people you end up with, they do the best they can to render justice. Even when Zimmerman was acquitted, you saw that some jurors put their personal feelings aside to do what they were tasked with doing. I have heard anecdotal evidence on the GJ side as well to support a similar view. BTW, it isn’t entirely true that GJs are rubber stamps for prosecutors. Many times, prosecutors get a true bill but barely. The GJs know that their role is to see if there is evidence to go ahead, not to decide guilt, and know that the trial phase is for that. Sometimes they issue true bills but know that the case is thin at best but it is their job to assess probable cause.
On the juvenile, he may well have been charged but those cases are sealed so you won’t know about it. As for whether he testifies, well, we will find out soon enough.
Interesting fun fact….. prescribed drugs (read legal) causes more deaths each year than heroin and cocaine combined. Who knew that once you peel back the layers of the onion, things can look differently. The media is telling me that the thugs dealing with illegal drugs are what should keep me up at night.
[102] moose
“(for the slight more wonky, Mapp, Gideon).”
Not wonky at all, if you studied. How about Gates, Brady and Terry? Had to write about all three, including when I had to school a Harvard-educated AUSA on why Brady didn’t apply solely to evidence supporting the case-in-chief. She didn’t appreciate getting schooled by a 3rd year but her boss agreed with me.
[105] redux,
The irony is that Dollree Mapp couldn’t be charged today, not because of the exclusionary rule but because the subject matter of the search isn’t illegal anymore.
Another interesting fact Steven Tylor is from the Bronx and he took every drug imaginable and is still alive.
Just to give you a frame of reference….here is some commentary from Ramsey Orta…
….”you ain’t gonna tell me how to talk…” in a court of law….to a prosecutor…..
But the question on the minds of Donovan and the jurors, Orta said, was “Why was Eric standing there?”
“The whole thing was just about Eric — why was he selling cigarettes, did you know he was selling cigarettes? It was bulls–t,” he said.
Orta said this got him upset and when he complained he was told — likely by a prosecutor — “to watch how I talk.”
“I said, ‘First of all, you ain’t gonna tell me how to talk,’” he said. “These are my feelings and I feel like there should be no sugar coating.”
Orta said prosecutors “brushed it off.”
My point was not meant to be argumentative in anyway; just wondering why you’d use school grades as a barometer for knowledge of how the law is put into practice if one has nothing to do with the other.
Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:
December 4, 2014 at 12:25 pm
[83] joyce,
True enough. Was there a point you were trying to make?
I always thought inefficiencies in the market is how you make money?
How JPMorgan Rushed To Hire Trader Because He Knew How To Rig The Electricity-Market
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-03/how-jpmorgan-rushed-hire-trader-because-he-knew-how-rig-electricity-market
[109] Joyce,
I disagree that one has nothing to do with the other. You can continue that work or not, but if you are a lawyer, you have at least a basic grounding in it, and you do use it even if indirectly. If I am restating pension plans or drafting contracts, I don’t apply con law principles directly; they don’t even crop up in outlier cases, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know it. Nor does it mean I don’t take an interest in it and continue to stay versed even if my practice doesn’t require that.
EXCLUSIVE: Man who filmed Eric Garner in chokehold says grand jury was rigged
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/eric-garner-grand-jury-rigged-man-filmed-chokehold-article-1.2033257
“The feds should pick it up,” he said. “Staten Island is too tied up. They all know each other. They won’t violate their own kind.”
Asked if was surprised by the decision, Orta said, “I knew this was going to be the verdict.”
Orta said the jurors saw the video that everybody else saw and still wouldn’t charge Pantaleo with a crime.
“We shouldn’t have to fight for it, it’s plain, it’s right there,” he said.
[107] JJ
You are correct as usual sir, that is interesting.
From previous discussions, you would always remark “that’s an academic argument not how it’s practiced in reality ”
E.g. Courts have long held XYX that was imagined out of thin air nowhere to be found in any constitution or statute.
That was the crux of my original comment.
[112] toxic
I was wondering when someone was going to key in on the grand jury. One of the first things I thought of was whether a SI GJ would indict, given the well-known racial animosity in places like SI and LI.
But that also goes back to the prosecution. How zealous were they?
Anyway , as the heading implies, I’ve screwed around too much here. But it is stuff I really do enjoy discussing.
As Shore used to say, Back to the salt mines.
[114] joyce,
okay, back once more for this, then I do have to be gone.
It’s a fair point but again, you can go on all day on how you get from an ideal to reality, and it is a reasonably clear path. Makes for good yet long discussions. Would help if there was some context to your thoughts as we can hang a lot on that frame.
some other time, unfortunately. Work beckons, and that is the only reason I am not in bed.
Comrade
At risk of going even further astray from original topics today, question… do you have a problem with jury nullification?
Joyce [117];
For my own part, I do… I have a problem that in the main it is far too infrequent so as to be largely ineffective. The general population is way too passive and agreeable to authority figures, particularly when placed in stone-column buildings and marble halls. The average person does not appreciate separation (such that it is) between the prosecutor and the court, nor are they confident enough in their freedom and independence to buck the ‘system’ in any but the most egregious cases. At the end of the night (case), the juror gets to go home even if they vote to convict.
Fast Eddie, 36
The purpose of these so called community leaders is to help dysfunctional communities find someone else to blame besides the community and its leaders.
Moose,
Well said (and not just because I agree).
Arm everyone and put a camera on their foreheads. We can then film ourselves killing each other until we go extinct.
2015 doesn’t seem so bad | New Jersey Real Estate Report
adnnbdgigwr
dnnbdgigwr http://www.g35m7fi4y7766qf4tm812lh52nqjp2p8s.org/
[url=http://www.g35m7fi4y7766qf4tm812lh52nqjp2p8s.org/]udnnbdgigwr[/url]
Hillary throws in with the Garner/Brown side. Nothing inflammatory but wonder how this will play.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/politics/hillary-clinton-ferguson-staten-island/index.html?hpt=po_c1
[117] Joyce
Do I have a problem with jury nullification?
Yes.
Huh. No matter what side of the garner issue you’re on, this is interesting….
I first heard this from my father, who heard it from his retired cop buddies.
Black female Police sergeant Kizzy Adoni supervized the fatal arrest of Eric Garner.
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.
“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.””
There is no mention of Adoni in a Google News search of the latest reports on the Garner decision.
There are very few mentions at all that a Black female sergeant oversaw the attempted arrest of Garner.
NBC News in New York reported the sergeants at the scene were offered immunity for their testimony before the grand jury.
“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.”
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.
“Pantaleo who applied the lethal chokehold on Eric Garner was supervised by an African-American female NYPD sergeant.
“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.
…”Any chance of a federal civil rights case will be hampered by that African-American police sergeant’s presence.”
Does Attorney General Eric Holder know?
He just opened a civil rights investigation on Eric Garner’s death.
Why
Comrade Nom Deplume, who needs to stop screwing around and get back to work says:
December 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm
[117] Joyce
Do I have a problem with jury nullification?
Yes.
Luge [121];
Sounds like you’re onto the next great “reality” TV show. Been all over fiction for years: Hunger Games; Running Man come to mind.
Here’s my boots on the ground opinion of four metrics in our economy:
1. Consumer spending is flat to declining. (negative outlook)
2. Employed people have rising confidence that they will not lose their jobs. (positive outlook)
3. Banks are rolling out more consumer credit (short term positive, long term negative)
4. Wages are rising about 2.5% per year for the last few years.
[123] Nom – Re:Hillary. Maybe the answer is to decriminalize crime? I took notice that she said black males are more likely to be arrested and sentenced but left out the tried and convicted part?
stopped, searched, charged, sentenced. No mention of trial or conviction.
The great Pumpkin is coming!!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2014-is-turning-into-a-great-year-for-job-growth-173402596.html
Starting to feel the heat.
“On one hand, Putin has already successfully weathered a mass protest movement and defanged his political opposition. On the other, it’s the first time his 14-year rule has been put through such economic trials.
“We’re only in the very beginning of this situation,” Volkov adds, “so it’s rather hard to forecast how it will develop.””
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102235487
moose (127)-
Nothing in that genre tops Rollerball.
All I really care about anymore are my family, my Gooners, getting enough sleep and the ongoing slow-motion fail of Arsene Wanker.
These goddam animals want to kill each other and loot the few businesses that still dare to ply their trade in these war zones? I say let them. Don’t send in the cops, don’t send in fire or ambulance. Ring-fence these zoos, and let them all kill each other.
And let them kill the white-guilt zombies who come piling on in a state of brainwashed “sympathy” after these senseless atrocities that they bring upon themselves.
Maybe a stray bullet or two will clip Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
[126] Joyce
Because it isn’t their job.
[131] great pumpkin
You’re gonna get a repetitive stress injury from all that jerk1ng off
Let me use use of your lines…Courts have long held that jury nullification is perfectly acceptable while they simultaneously do everything they can to prevent it.
Comrade Nom Deplume, at Peace With The Trolls says:
December 4, 2014 at 10:11 pm
[126] Joyce
Because it isn’t their job.
[140] Joyce
I said that? Don’t remember it but I’m probably getting on.
Besides, it’s a statement, not an opinion. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Stop arguing with lawyers, joyce. They win every time.
Interesting development in what was once considered a recession proof market
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102239957