Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre

[geauxtohell]

You're right, the facts are relevant. For instance, they didn't just shoot Madison. One of the officers shot him in the back. While he was attempting to retreat. He was unarmed. Perhaps the officer driving the car had no way of knowing this, as he was concentrating on driving, but according to Hunter, the officer who did the deed knew or should have known he was unarmed and not a threat. The next factor is when Madison is lying on the ground bleeding to death, when it is abundantly clear that he poses no threat, another officer decides to kick him and stomp him,

which brings us around the to same question,

how the heck is kicking and stomping a dying man a policemans "duty" ?

It's not. You won't hear me arguing otherwise.

They had them on the murder rap. The federal government lacks jurisdiction for a murder charge in this case - if they had jurisdiction for murder you can be damn sure that would be the charge instead.

Now I get to accuse you of not reading my stuff:

After a long investigation, highlighted by Burton Kaplan's decision to testify against his former confederates, both Eppolito and Caracappa were arrested in March 2005 and charged with counts of racketeering, obstruction of justice, extortion and eight counts of murder and conspiracy, including the murders of James Hydell, Nicholas Guido, John "Otto" Heidel, John Doe, Anthony DiLapi, Bruno Facciolo, Edward Lino and Bartholomew Boriello, and the murder conspiracy on Sammy Gravano, hatched by Peter Gotti.

On April 6, 2006, Eppolito and Caracappa were convicted on all charges

So these guys were hiding behind their badges to be mob hitmen, were convicted of, among other things, eight counts of murder and got life. This was a federal case btw.

Like I said, don't hold your breath for execution.

And classifying the murder of 8 mobsters as "more egregious" than killing an unarmed innocent mentally handicapped man and then stomping on his dying body and then arresting his brother and trying to frame him up - is debatable.

I was speaking more of the heinous acts under the "color of law" that these officers were a part and parcel of.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You have mentioned they were "doing their duty" before and I asked you how beating a man in need of immediate medical attention is part of the "duty" of a cop, do you intend to explain this to me?

These officers stayed at their post, while many NOPD officers fled, and responded to a report of gunshots. All of that was within the scope of their duty and all of that set the stage for what happened.

I agree that the situation immediately got out of hand and the cops stepped outside of their duty.

However, if you are going to use the fact that they abused their power to kill someone more facts about this case need to come out.

And you know that.

The mere fact that they killed Madison and tried to frame his brother doesn't equate, in the mind of a logical person, "let's just execute them and call it good".

Much more needs to be known about this incident, whether you like it or not.

Much more, like the fact they didn't just kill Madison - at least one officer aided his death even after it was abundantly clear he was no threat, in a most brutal manner - by stomping on his chest with his foot and kicking him (with what I would presume is very heavy footwear if the officer was properly attired, but like you said, that will come out at trial).

Why do you continue to ignore this every time its brought up? Responding to a call about gunshots - police duty - OK, I get that. Firing on a group of people that think might have weapons even though you don't see any - a mistake, yes - but something done in furtherance of duty - I get that, too.

But I still don't get how stomping on the chest of an innocent unarmed dying man qualifies as "duty" or "mistake" or anything other than a cold hearted attempt to ensure the death of a man already in need of dire medical attention. Can you please explain how that act merely falls under the heading of "duty" or even "mistake" or even "really bad mistake" ?

And furthermore, why do you insist on ignoring it? Your statement above acts as if the only known facts are that an unarmed man wound up dead at the hands of the police and that the cops covered it up - it completely ignores the manner in which they killed.

Give me a break. No wonder you want to live in "hypothetical" land. When the facts don't suit you, you can create alternate realities.

I said "probably" - that should be an indication to you that I'm merely hazarding a guess. I am allowed to guess, right?

Since you are so hung up on 242, why wasn't that even pursued by the feds in this manner?

As I have already stated, the feds already had murder jurisdiction. Murder is the better charge to file when you have a choice.

 

[geauxtohell]

Why does real justice require me to care why they did what they did?

Surely you jest. Again, this is why we have due process.

Title 18 Section 242 does not care what their reasons were, why should I?

Statutes words on paper. Convictions are sentences are carried out in courts of law. I can't take you seriously if you are going to simply argue that the facts around this matter are no relevant.

You just come across as some sort of pissed off person who wants to trade injustice for injustice.

Since you like legal terms, off the top of my mind the components of a crime are mens rea and actus reus.

If we take Hunters statement as absolute truth, then we know the actus reus. We do not know the mens rea.

That is to say the motive matters and this is recognized by the legal system.

If they want to explain why they did what they did, I'd recommend they do it to Jim Letten right now and take a plea deal,

I don't disagree. I think they are screwed, but I doubt they'll be executed for it.

rather than waiting till trial - because the only thing relevant to their guilt is WHAT they did.

I couldn't disagree more. As I said, if you want to get technical there is no guilty act without a guilty mind.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You're right, the facts are relevant. For instance, they didn't just shoot Madison. One of the officers shot him in the back. While he was attempting to retreat. He was unarmed. Perhaps the officer driving the car had no way of knowing this, as he was concentrating on driving, but according to Hunter, the officer who did the deed knew or should have known he was unarmed and not a threat. The next factor is when Madison is lying on the ground bleeding to death, when it is abundantly clear that he poses no threat, another officer decides to kick him and stomp him,

which brings us around the to same question,

how the heck is kicking and stomping a dying man a policemans "duty" ?

It's not. You won't hear me arguing otherwise.

A reasonable person could read the last few pages and think you were arguing otherwise.

 

[geauxtohell]

Much more, like the fact they didn't just kill Madison - at least one officer aided his death even after it was abundantly clear he was no threat, in a most brutal manner - by stomping on his chest with his foot and kicking him (with what I would presume is very heavy footwear if the officer was properly attired, but like you said, that will come out at trial).

Why do you continue to ignore this every time its brought up?

Because I have never disputed that this is a heinous act that deserves punishment. I have disputed that this is a heinous act that demands execution for justice. I find it relevant that these were police officers in one of the worst catastrophes in our nation's history. It's not so relevant that it excuses the crime, but it makes it different than the officers I linked about above who systematically murdered for the mafia for money. I suspect these officers created a situation of chaos and acted out of haste and fear which led to things that are heinous in retrospect. It doesn't mean they arrived at the Danziger Bridge with the motive to hide behind their badges to kill people.

Responding to a call about gunshots - police duty - OK, I get that. Firing on a group of people that think might have weapons even though you don't see any - a mistake, yes - but something done in furtherance of duty - I get that, too.

I actually don't get that. I think these cops laid the ground work that escalated into a massacre.

But I still don't get how stomping on the chest of an innocent unarmed dying man qualifies as "duty" or "mistake" or anything other than a cold hearted attempt to ensure the death of a man already in need of dire medical attention. Can you please explain how that act merely falls under the heading of "duty" or even "mistake" or even "really bad mistake" ?

And furthermore, why do you insist on ignoring it? Your statement above acts as if the only known facts are that an unarmed man wound up dead at the hands of the police and that the cops covered it up - it completely ignores the manner in which they killed.

Have you ever seen what happens when men start shooting? It get's chaotic, the adrenaline starts flowing, and men do things they otherwise wouldn't have done. I am not ignoring what the officers did. I am saying they didn't do it in a vacuum. They surely breached their duty. Why?

Again, I know you don't do nuance, so don't take that as a defense of the indefensible.

I said "probably" - that should be an indication to you that I'm merely hazarding a guess. I am allowed to guess, right?

Sure. Guess away. It looks silly, but go for it.

As I have already stated, the feds already had murder jurisdiction. Murder is the better charge to file when you have a choice.

So, admittedly, we are utilizing 242 here because it allows for execution of these officers, which you think is the only justice that can be served here?

So we are going to bypass all other statutes that could be more applicable because we want to pursue an execution?

Seriously?

 

[geauxtohell]

A reasonable person could read the last few pages and think you were arguing otherwise.

You aren't a "reasonable person" about this issue. You are emotionally involved and have already reached a verdict and sentence on Officer and Sergeant A.

You have consistently missed the points that others have made simply because people don't automatically subscribe to your notion that these officers deserve the death penalty.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I can't take you seriously if you are going to simply argue that the facts around this matter are no relevant.

Not all the facts are relevant. For instance, the officers favorite color is not relevant. Nor is their initial intention when arriving on the scene.

You just come across as some sort of pissed off person who wants to trade injustice for injustice.

I don't really see executing a man who brutally stomped on the chest of an unarmed man with a gunshot wound in his back to be injustice.

Since you like legal terms, off the top of my mind the components of a crime are mens rea and actus reus.

If we take Hunters statement as absolute truth, then we know the actus reus. We do not know the mens rea.

You're arguing that a man who kicked an unarmed man with a gunshot wound and stomped on his chest did so without ill intent. I don't buy that argument.I fail to see how you could even suggest it.

That is to say the motive matters and this is recognized by the legal system.

Establishing mens rea does not require establishing a motive, it only requires establishing that the act was intended. Motive is not a defense for a crime. For instance - if I plan to kill an abortion doctor in order to protect the unborn - what is relevant is that I planned the killing and that I carried it out - what is irrelevant is why I did it. The law doesn't care that I'm doing it with the inarguably good intention of saving the unborn. In this case, 1st degree murder would require proof that I had planned the act beforehand. Title 18 242 does not require this - it only requires that the act be willful.

I couldn't disagree more. As I said, if you want to get technical there is no guilty act without a guilty mind.

Let's pretend for a second that you were a juror and a DA was trying to convince you that Sergeant A had a guilty mind. Now pretend he has successfully convinced you that Sergeant A did indeed kick and stomp a man he knew to be unarmed and that he knew to be no threat and that he knew was seriously wounded - please tell me what more evidence you would need to be convinced that Sergeant A had ill intent towards Madison?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I find it relevant that these were police officers in one of the worst catastrophes in our nation's history.

What might be relevant is any evidence that Seargent A saved lives or property during the storm. So far no evidence to that effect has been presented, all the evidence so far suggests everyone would have been much better off if Sergeant A had fled with the rest of the pussies.

Have you ever seen what happens when men start shooting? It get's chaotic, the adrenaline starts flowing, and men do things they otherwise wouldn't have done.

I don't really see how that excuses the action or how it means the action was not committed with ill intent.

So, admittedly, we are utilizing 242 here because it allows for execution of these officers, which you think is the only justice that can be served here?

I believe that if Officer A and Sergeant A are ever charged on anything more serious than obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony, it will be Title 18 Section 242, for two reasons a) it is precisely for situations like this that the law is intended b) the federal government simply lacks jurisdiction to charge what these two deserved to be charged with - murder.

So we are going to bypass all other statutes that could be more applicable because we want to pursue an execution?

By all means - provide an example.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A reasonable person could read the last few pages and think you were arguing otherwise.

You aren't a "reasonable person" about this issue. You are emotionally involved and have already reached a verdict and sentence on Officer and Sergeant A.

My "verdict and sentence" is conditioned on the proving of certain things at trial, which I have previously outlined. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[QUENTIN]

How is it unjust? It fits precisely with the concept that the punishment should fit the crime.

"The punishment should fit the crime" is another way of saying "an eye for an eye." You get done to you what you did. That may have been what people considered justice 4,000 years ago but I think we've moved beyond that and evolved as a people. We no longer need to resort to barbarism.

Actually, retribution - in proportion to the offense - is part of the purpose of the modern justice system. The other purposes being rehabilitation and deterrence.

4000 years ago if you stole a loaf of bread they would lop off your hand. That is not an "eye for an eye".

But the loaf of bread analogy was a bastardized application of an eye for an eye that erroneously valued a loaf of bread as equivalent to a human hand. The principle of an eye for an eye is literal, and your application of it is quite literal. You want someone who killed someone to in turn be killed. That's an eye for an eye and it's not justice, it's vengeance.

The government cannot commit crimes in order to punish crimes. Murder is wrong. You don't demonstrate that by murdering people.
"Justifiable homicide" is literal self-defense, someone attacking you and you protect yourself by killing them, not taking someone already shackled in chains and confined to a cell posing no threat to society to be put down like an animal. The death penalty is premeditated and deliberate murder.

Lawful execution is not murder. For one thing, its lawful, and murder by definition is illegal. By your logic we shouldn't even put people in prison, since I am fairly certain that confining someone against their will is a crime in most other circumstances.

Laws do not dictate the moral rightness or wrongness of an act, there are numerous unjust laws on the books, hardly anyone would deny. Killing someone who is has already been removed as a threat to society, or anyone else who is not posing an immediate physical threat, is murder. And in the case of the death penalty, it's quite premeditated and against a defenseless victim.

If you want to avoid the moral argument, the death penalty has been proven to be an ineffective deterrent to crime and is more costly.

That's not actually true. Although the upfront costs of the initial conviction is much higher in death penalty cases, the cost to house a prisoner for life without parole (30-40 years on average) adds up to much more.

Argument: Executions are no more costly than life in prison - Debatepedia

Actually, that's not true.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=108&scid=7

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7235405AAqZ8zp

Executing Felons More Costly Than Imprisonment, Study Shows

cost

Based on different states that have the death penalty:

On average, it costs $329,000 more to execute a prisoner than to imprison him following conviction in a non-capital trial.

Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences

Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole

According to state and federal records obtained by The Los Angeles Times, maintaining the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life.

Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases.

That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.

The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.

The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).

The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.

The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.

*A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life."

*"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at 2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000.

*"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions-- that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."

$2 million in legal fees to try a death penalty case, nearly 4 times higher than comparable murder trials.

*The automatic appeal process costs up to $700,000 in legal fees.

*$1.2 million in execution costs.

*The Judicial Conference of the United States estimates that the defense cost alone is four times higher in death-penalty cases than in cases where death isn't sought.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

*"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at 2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000.

This is an apples to oranges comparison of cost of appeals pertaining to one penalty with cost of housing in another. What about the cost of defending against the appeals that a lifer will make over his life? Does that just not count as part of the total expense of a lifer, because it won't make the numbers turn out how we like?

 

[nraforlife]

Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there any particular reason to assume that the wiki story reflects reality or is it just one more piece of progressive disinformation.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there any particular reason to assume that the wiki story reflects reality or is it just one more piece of progressive disinformation.

You could check out the sources the wiki article is referencing, but I know that would actually require effort on your part. Just watch FOX News instead and go with whatever they say as absolute truth.

 

[nraforlife]

Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there any particular reason to assume that the wiki story reflects reality or is it just one more piece of progressive disinformation.

You could check out the sources the wiki article is referencing, but I know that would actually require effort on your part. Just watch FOX News instead and go with whatever they say as absolute truth.

No need if it is in wiki it is questionable

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there any particular reason to assume that the wiki story reflects reality or is it just one more piece of progressive disinformation.

You could check out the sources the wiki article is referencing, but I know that would actually require effort on your part. Just watch FOX News instead and go with whatever they say as absolute truth.

No need if it is in wiki it is questionable

I wrote the wiki on this topic. Please tell me which statements in the article you do not think are justified given the sources I cite.

 

[geauxtohell]

In memory of Spiderman Tuba:

What Happened on the Danziger Bridge? | FRONTLINE | PBS