Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre

[SpidermanTuba]

I've never claimed to be or insinuated that I am a lawyer. Seriously, English, English, English, read it, understand it.

Oh, you definitely insinuated it. Why else would you say things like "You are definately not a lawyer" or "Please tell me that you don't go to Tulane Law".

I said that because I thought your grasp of legal concepts was very shaky. I don't see how that means I have to be a lawyer. If you say 1+1=3 and I say "I can tell you're not a rocket scientist" do you assume I'm a rocket scientist?

Is life a "civil right" as secured under the 14th amendment? I know the 14th amendment covers issues such as due process.

Yes. In fact its explicitly mentioned in Section 1.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Than why isn't every person who commits murder prosecuted for violating "civil rights"?

The federal government only has jurisdiction in this case because of specific authority granted in Section 5 of the 14th amendment. This gives them the power to enforce Section 1 of the 14th amendment - which is a prohibition against the actions of states and those acting on behalf of states - not against citizens. If I kill you in cold blood as a citizen - I am not a state or state actor depriving someone of their civil rights, thus Congress has no authority under the 14th amendment to pass laws to prosecute me.(If it happens on federal property, they have authority, but it does not derive from the 14th amendment)

But we don't know why they fired. We don't know the circumstances around their actions. You are wholly unconcerned with this, but the courts will not be.

Why they fired and the circumstances around their actions are two different things.

You don't think motive and intent factors into sentencing?

I doubt the jury would find anything the police say believable considering they spent 5 years covering it up.

My point, obviously lost to you, is that "under the color or law" has meaning beyond the fact that these were police officers. If these officers thought they were acting within the scope of their duties, ended up killing innocent people, and then tried to cover it up then it becomes a much different issue than if these officers used their position of power to selectively target and murder people for whatever reason.

Beating an unarmed man who is lying defenseless on the ground and in need of immediate medical attention due to gunshot wounds is never "within the scope" of police duties and I find it flabbergasting that you think it ever would be or that you think a police officer in his right mind would actually think that to be in the scope of his duties.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That it was a good example of a civil rights case.

So what?

We are discussing what you deem to be a civil rights case. No?

Oh, OK, I guess I'll just start listing the names of other civil rights cases, as if I were making a point.

 

[Gunny]

So what?

We are discussing what you deem to be a civil rights case. No?

Oh, OK, I guess I'll just start listing the names of other civil rights cases, as if I were making a point.

Wow. In 6 years you STILL haven't come up with an argument.

 

[Nonelitist]

I've never claimed to be or insinuated that I am a lawyer. Seriously, English, English, English, read it, understand it.

Oh, you definitely insinuated it. Why else would you say things like "You are definately not a lawyer" or "Please tell me that you don't go to Tulane Law".

I said that because I thought your grasp of legal concepts was very shaky. I don't see how that means I have to be a lawyer. If you say 1+1=3 and I say "I can tell you're not a rocket scientist" do you assume I'm a rocket scientist?





Yes. In fact its explicitly mentioned in Section 1.




The federal government only has jurisdiction in this case because of specific authority granted in Section 5 of the 14th amendment. This gives them the power to enforce Section 1 of the 14th amendment - which is a prohibition against the actions of states and those acting on behalf of states - not against citizens. If I kill you in cold blood as a citizen - I am not a state or state actor depriving someone of their civil rights, thus Congress has no authority under the 14th amendment to pass laws to prosecute me.(If it happens on federal property, they have authority, but it does not derive from the 14th amendment)



Why they fired and the circumstances around their actions are two different things.

You don't think motive and intent factors into sentencing?

I doubt the jury would find anything the police say believable considering they spent 5 years covering it up.

My point, obviously lost to you, is that "under the color or law" has meaning beyond the fact that these were police officers. If these officers thought they were acting within the scope of their duties, ended up killing innocent people, and then tried to cover it up then it becomes a much different issue than if these officers used their position of power to selectively target and murder people for whatever reason.

Beating an unarmed man who is lying defenseless on the ground and in need of immediate medical attention due to gunshot wounds is never "within the scope" of police duties and I find it flabbergasting that you think it ever would be or that you think a police officer in his right mind would actually think that to be in the scope of his duties.

I don't think anyone is condoning that behavior. People are disagreeing with you about the punishment.

Think of all the Civil Rights lawsuits the NBA might have to deal with. Stern could be executed.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't think anyone is condoning that behavior. People are disagreeing with you about the punishment.

Actually geauxtohell is disagreeing that title 18 section 242 applies at all. You need to read and keep up.

Think of all the Civil Rights lawsuits the NBA might have to deal with. Stern could be executed.

Dude what the fuck are you even talking about?

 

[Nonelitist]

I don't think anyone is condoning that behavior. People are disagreeing with you about the punishment.

Actually geauxtohell is disagreeing that title 18 section 242 applies at all. You need to read and keep up.

Think of all the Civil Rights lawsuits the NBA might have to deal with. Stern could be executed.

Dude what the fuck are you even talking about?

It is obvious that white are discriminated against in the NBA. What is the percentage of whites in the population? What is the percentage of whites in NBA?

These men are being denied their civil rights by these evil GM's and owners. I think some executions are in order.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't think anyone is condoning that behavior. People are disagreeing with you about the punishment.

Actually geauxtohell is disagreeing that title 18 section 242 applies at all. You need to read and keep up.

Think of all the Civil Rights lawsuits the NBA might have to deal with. Stern could be executed.

Dude what the fuck are you even talking about?

It is obvious that white are discriminated against in the NBA. What is the percentage of whites in the population? What is the percentage of whites in NBA?

These men are being denied their civil rights by these evil GM's and owners. I think some executions are in order.

The NBA isn't a state or state actor so I fail to see how Title 18 Section 242 would apply to them, can you please explain?

 

[Nonelitist]

Actually geauxtohell is disagreeing that title 18 section 242 applies at all. You need to read and keep up.

Dude what the fuck are you even talking about?

It is obvious that white are discriminated against in the NBA. What is the percentage of whites in the population? What is the percentage of whites in NBA?

These men are being denied their civil rights by these evil GM's and owners. I think some executions are in order.

The NBA isn't a state or state actor so I fail to see how Title 18 Section 242 would apply to them, can you please explain?

Just saying. Someone needs to take a look at this issue. Men are being oppressed!! And as you proved.... When someone loses their civil rights, there clearly should be an execution.

 

[geauxtohell]

I said that because I thought your grasp of legal concepts was very shaky. I don't see how that means I have to be a lawyer. If you say 1+1=3 and I say "I can tell you're not a rocket scientist" do you assume I'm a rocket scientist?

LMAO. Saying someone is not a "rocket scientist" is a well known pejorative statement. When someone says "I can tell you aren't a lawyer" it implies they have some sort of legal expertise. Whatever. Since you aren't a lawyer, I'll take your criticism of my grasp of legal concepts for what they are worth. I would expect to have a shaky grasp of the law, because I am not a lawyer and have never pretended to be otherwise.

On that note, I'll take your high esteem for your grasp of legal concepts for what they are worth too.

My wife is about a week away from graduating from law school, and as a spectator, the only thing I've learned is that the answer to most every question is "it depends". Thus, your insistence to stomp your feet and insist you are right on all the legalities of this issue is silly.

Yes. In fact its explicitly mentioned in Section 1.

Fair enough.

The federal government only has jurisdiction in this case because of specific authority granted in Section 5 of the 14th amendment. This gives them the power to enforce Section 1 of the 14th amendment - which is a prohibition against the actions of states and those acting on behalf of states - not against citizens. If I kill you in cold blood as a citizen - I am not a state or state actor depriving someone of their civil rights, thus Congress has no authority under the 14th amendment to pass laws to prosecute me.(If it happens on federal property, they have authority, but it does not derive from the 14th amendment)

I won't argue that the letter of the law of this statute is as you state it. However, I believe the intent of the civil rights clauses, and certainly the 14th amendment, was to ensure that rights weren't being violated or deprived based on race. So to say race isn't germane to this issue is a little absurd IMO. Of course, then you would have to prove that the victims were targeted specifically due to their race, which raises the bar for you. So I can understand why you want to omit that fact.

I am sure these aren't the first crooked cops to kill under the "color of law". Yet, no single person (at the least from 1927 to 2003) has been executed under this statute.

I doubt that cops in the middle of Katrina in a chaotic situation who most likely didn't respond to the Danziger Bridge with the intent to abuse their power to commit murder are going to be the first.

Why they fired and the circumstances around their actions are two different things.

No they aren't.

I doubt the jury would find anything the police say believable considering they spent 5 years covering it up.

I suppose we could speculate all day. If these officers aren't specifically charged with the cover up on top of killing Madison, I speculate as to if the facts around the cover up would even be admissible as it is pejorative to the defendants.

Beating an unarmed man who is lying defenseless on the ground and in need of immediate medical attention due to gunshot wounds is never "within the scope" of police duties and I find it flabbergasting that you think it ever would be or that you think a police officer in his right mind would actually think that to be in the scope of his duties.

I was just pointing out that it is my belief that actions "under the color of law" that result in death aren't all equal. These officers responded and, up to a point, were behaving in a manner that would be expected for law enforcement. At some point between the first and last shot, that went horribly astray. That doesn't mean that these officers intended to kill under the color of law.

I know you don't do nuance, so let me re-iterate that I am not suggesting that the police were justified in what they did to the Madison family.

 

[geauxtohell]

We are discussing what you deem to be a civil rights case. No?

Oh, OK, I guess I'll just start listing the names of other civil rights cases, as if I were making a point.

Wow. In 6 years you STILL haven't come up with an argument.

Well, the state did, but then the case got dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct, then a bunch of NOPD officers got busted for trying to cover it all up, so naturally that equates to a need to automatically void the officer's right to due process and just execute the fuckers already.

Or something like that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Just saying. Someone needs to take a look at this issue. Men are being oppressed!!

OK. Do you need to know how to start a thread?

And as you proved.... When someone loses their civil rights, there clearly should be an execution.

You have to be the most retarded person here

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't think anyone is condoning that behavior. People are disagreeing with you about the punishment.

Actually geauxtohell is disagreeing that title 18 section 242 applies at all. You need to read and keep up.

No, actually I am not. As NE said, I disagree with you on the punishment.

242 doesn't mandate execution. It just allows for it.

As I said, no one has been executed under this statute, I doubt these officers will be the first.

I think the federal government is well within the scope of the statute to file charges on this matter. Aside from Madison's death, you have about 4 jillion other egregious acts (firing recklessly into a crowd, falsely arresting and imprisoning and innocent man, etc).

I am curious as to where the federal government will go with it.

As I said, even if I did support the death penalty, I don't think their actions warrant death. I think life in prison is appropriate.

Like it or not, they were doing their duty in extreme circumstances and responded to a situation where they believed shots had been fired (and perhaps an officer had been killed) and the situation spiraled into a giant mess. I don't see this as a simple murder under the "color of law" situation.

BTW, here are some crooked cops:

Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That killed under the "color of law" for money for the mafia that weren't charged under this statute and their convictions both netted life imprisonment.

Are you trying to say that the cops on the Danziger Bridge deserve worse?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I said that because I thought your grasp of legal concepts was very shaky. I don't see how that means I have to be a lawyer. If you say 1+1=3 and I say "I can tell you're not a rocket scientist" do you assume I'm a rocket scientist?

LMAO. Saying someone is not a "rocket scientist" is a well known pejorative statement.

Then forgive me for being original.

My wife is about a week away from graduating from law school, and as a spectator, the only thing I've learned is that the answer to most every question is "it depends".

My wife graduated law school 5 years ago.

I won't argue that the letter of the law of this statute is as you state it. However, I believe the intent of the civil rights clauses, and certainly the 14th amendment, was to ensure that rights weren't being violated or deprived based on race.

If the 14th amendment was intended to only apply to deprivation of rights due to race, it would probably have the word "race" or "color" or "ethnicity" in it, or in someway mention this, wouldn't you think?

So to say race isn't germane to this issue is a little absurd IMO

.


Considering 3 or 4 of the officers who participated in the shooting were black and the victims were black, I fail to see how race is an issue here. Maybe you can explain.

Of course, then you would have to prove that the victims were targeted specifically due to their race, which raises the bar for you. So I can understand why you want to omit that fact.

Omit what fact? What you have stated is not a fact. I'm sorry the law disagrees with what you'd like it to say.

That doesn't mean that these officers intended to kill under the color of law.

How does shooting someone in the back with a shotgun not qualify as intending to kill? I'd like to see you use that defense "but judge, I didn't mean to kill him by shooting him in the back!"

 

[SpidermanTuba]

... that equates to a need to automatically void the officer's right to due process and just execute the fuckers already.

Link?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Like it or not, they were doing their duty in extreme circumstances and responded to a situation where they believed shots had been fired (and perhaps an officer had been killed) and the situation spiraled into a giant mess. I don't see this as a simple murder under the "color of law" situation.

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?

BTW, here are some crooked cops:

Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That killed under the "color of law" for money for the mafia that weren't charged under this statute and their convictions both netted life imprisonment.

The prosecution probably figured since all their victims were mobsters they wouldn't be able to get a jury to care.

On the other hand - a mentally handicapped man with no criminal record to speak of who lives with his mother - different story.

 

[geauxtohell]

Then forgive me for being original.

M'eh, it's over now. At least I know where you are coming from.

My wife graduated law school 5 years ago.

So we are both kept men? I'll assume we probably are close in age as well. My wife and I graduated college in '01 and both undertook a career change.

If the 14th amendment was intended to only apply to deprivation of rights due to race, it would probably have the word "race" or "color" or "ethnicity" in it, or in someway mention this, wouldn't you think?

I suppose, but are you honestly going to argue that the 14th amendment wasn't penned as a means to ensure that rights weren't deprived on the basis of race?

Considering 3 or 4 of the officers who participated in the shooting were black and the victims were black, I fail to see how race is an issue here. Maybe you can explain.

I am still tied to the issue of a violation of a "civil right" being tied to race in some manner. I think that addresses all other statements on the matter.

How does shooting someone in the back with a shotgun not qualify as intending to kill? I'd like to see you use that defense "but judge, I didn't mean to kill him by shooting him in the back!"

I doubt I'll ever be using that defense. I haven't touched a weapon since I got out of the service. If I have my way, I'll never touch one again.

Now that we have removed the ad hominem..................

Back to the issue at hand which is punishment for people that kill under the "color of law". If the issue is only that these cops killed people while they were cops and that is why we have to pursue 242 in order to get an execution, then I don't think we are pursuing justice. As I stated, the factors around the shootings are relevant.

Furthermore, I linked a case of a far more egregious act by police officers where civil rights violations were never pursued.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I suppose, but are you honestly going to argue that the 14th amendment wasn't penned as a means to ensure that rights weren't deprived on the basis of race?

It was written in response to a racial issue but its scope is much broader than that.

Back to the issue at hand which is punishment for people that kill under the "color of law". If the issue is only that these cops killed people while they were cops and that is why we have to pursue 242 in order to get an execution, then I don't think we are pursuing justice. As I stated, the factors around the shootings are relevant.

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" ?

Furthermore, I linked a case of a far more egregious act by police officers where civil rights violations were never pursued.

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.

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.

 

[geauxtohell]

... that equates to a need to automatically void the officer's right to due process and just execute the fuckers already.

Link?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2245737-post83.html

The cops involved have had 5 years to explain why they did what they did. Instead they covered it up. So I could give a fuck why they did what they did. Their chance to explain has long past.

Plus about a dozen other statements to that effect.

You aren't interested in real justice. As I've noted, you've reached a verdict and a conviction before these officers have had their day in court.

Or are we in magical hypothetical land again?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

... that equates to a need to automatically void the officer's right to due process and just execute the fuckers already.

Link?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2245737-post83.html

The cops involved have had 5 years to explain why they did what they did. Instead they covered it up. So I could give a fuck why they did what they did. Their chance to explain has long past.

Plus about a dozen other statements to that effect.

You aren't interested in real justice. As I've noted, you've reached a verdict and a conviction before these officers have had their day in court.

Or are we in magical hypothetical land again?

Why does real justice require me to care why they did what they did? Title 18 Section 242 does not care what their reasons were, why should I? 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, rather than waiting till trial - because the only thing relevant to their guilt is WHAT they did.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

The prosecution probably figured since all their victims were mobsters they wouldn't be able to get a jury to care.

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.

Since you are so hung up on 242, why wasn't that even pursued by the feds in this manner? I mean, you have cops killing people. For money for the mafia no less. I could think of few more egregious circumstances involving a police officer. They even killed under the "color of law":

By 1985, US authorities recognized Eppolito and Caracappa as associates and workers for the New York Mafia. Stephen Caracappa was at this point a member of the Organized Crime Homicide Unit within the Major Case Squad, based in Brooklyn, New York, and both their reputations were diminished as they were known to use highly inappropriate methods to get results in their line of work. According to Anthony "Gaspipe" Casso, the Underboss of the Lucchese crime family, when he tried for Witness Protection in 1994, he and his boss Vittorio "Vic" Amuso had been paying Eppolito and Caracappa $375,000 in bribes and as payments for murder 'contracts' since 1985, after they were signed as NYPD detectives and partners. Among other things, Casso shared that, in 1986, the two police officers kidnapped and turned over an associate of the Gambino crime family named James Hydell to be murdered brutally by Gaspipe, on the orders of Casso and Amuso, as retaliation for an attempt on Casso's life.

On the other hand - a mentally handicapped man with no criminal record to speak of who lives with his mother - different story.

Quit being a drama queen.