Should some of the Danziger 7 be executed?

[SpidermanTUba]

QUESTION-

IF YOU WERE ON A JURY DECIDING THE FATE OF "OFFICER A" AND "SERGEANT A", WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS BILL OF INFORMATION: http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/bill-of-information-charging-michael-hunter, AND ASSUMED YOU BELIEVED THOSE FACTS TRUE AT TRIAL, WOULD YOU FIND EITHER OF THEM GUILTY OF VIOLATING USC TITLE 18 SECTION 242, "DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW" http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242, AND WOULD YOU SENTENCE THEM TO DEATH?

(please respond with most severe sentence between the two, for instance, if you think Officer A should get death but Sergeant A is not guilty, respond "Guilty w death"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_Massacre

[Gaffer]

QUESTION-

IF YOU WERE ON A JURY DECIDING THE FATE OF "OFFICER A" AND "SERGEANT A", WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS BILL OF INFORMATION: http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/bill-of-information-charging-michael-hunter, AND ASSUMED YOU BELIEVED THOSE FACTS TRUE AT TRIAL, WOULD YOU FIND EITHER OF THEM GUILTY OF VIOLATING USC TITLE 18 SECTION 242, "DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW" http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242, AND WOULD YOU SENTENCE THEM TO DEATH?

(please respond with most severe sentence between the two, for instance, if you think Officer A should get death but Sergeant A is not guilty, respond "Guilty w death"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_Massacre

I never heard of this until now. Your post seems to indicate you think they are guilty. Now if you look at the charges there's nothing more there than lying. So if they were convicted it would be for lying. They should therefore get the same punishment bj clinton received for lying. There is no federal or state law that calls for the death penalty for lying. They were already acquitted at the state level.

[namvet]

2005. Hurricane Katrina??? think you could have found something older ????

[Trigg]

I would say that the NOPD, as least during my time there, was corrupt. But, I wouldn't pass judgment based on that article. For instance, there are no statements from the people who ran.



6 days after the hurricane New Orleans was a ghost town. The population was basically down to the military, police and people up to no good.

[SpidermanTUba]

I never heard of this until now. Your post seems to indicate you think they are guilty. Now if you look at the charges there's nothing more there than lying. So if they were convicted it would be for lying. They should therefore get the same punishment bj clinton received for lying. There is no federal or state law that calls for the death penalty for lying. They were already acquitted at the state level.


Please read the bill of information linked at the top of the page and THEN respond.

[SpidermanTUba]

2005. Hurricane Katrina??? think you could have found something older ????

The linked bill of information was filed in federal court March 30, 2010. You would have known this if you'd actually read it.

[SpidermanTUba]

I would say that the NOPD, as least during my time there, was corrupt. But, I wouldn't pass judgment based on that article. For instance, there are no statements from the people who ran.

What article? I linked a court filing, which you, as the past two posters, clearly have not read. The question is whether or not you, as a jury member, having been convinced those facts are true, would convict and if so, whether or not death would be the sentence.



6 days after the hurricane New Orleans was a ghost town. The population was basically down to the military, police and people up to no good.


Oh I get it. You don't wanna pass judgement on a police officer who shot an unarmed mentally handicapped 40 year old man with no criminal record (who lived with his mother for crying out loud) in the back as he ran - but you're all to eager to pass judgment on people who just happened to be in New Orleans at the time as "up to no good" based solely on the fact that they were there.

Trig from the great white north, you actually have no clue what you're talking about. There were 10's of thousands of ordinary law abiding citizens who were in New Orleans in the aftermath. Many because they had no transportation out - some because they made a bad decision - either way, you don't deserve to be shot in the back simply because you were in the city at the time.

[Trigg]

What article? I linked a court filing, which you, as the past two posters, clearly have not read. The question is whether or not you, as a jury member, having been convinced those facts are true, would convict and if so, whether or not death would be the sentence.




Oh I get it. You don't wanna pass judgement on a police officer who shot an unarmed mentally handicapped 40 year old man with no criminal record (who lived with his mother for crying out loud) in the back as he ran - but you're all to eager to pass judgment on people who just happened to be in New Orleans at the time as "up to no good" based solely on the fact that they were there.

Trig from the great white north, you actually have no clue what you're talking about. There were 10's of thousands of ordinary law abiding citizens who were in New Orleans in the aftermath. Many because they had no transportation out - some because they made a bad decision - either way, you don't deserve to be shot in the back simply because you were in the city at the time.

I read the wikipedia article you linked to.

Your article does not deal with immediately after the storm, when their were thousands of innocent people trying to get out. Your article deals with 6 days later after a MAJOR evacuation was completed and the population was down to the bare bones.

I realize your from that area of the country, but don't assume I know nothing about New Orleans. I used to live there.

[SpidermanTUba]

I read the wikipedia article you linked to.

OK. But the question refers to the bill of information, which you didn't read. So why are you trying to answer a question about something you know nothing about.l



Your article does not deal with immediately after the storm, when their were thousands of innocent people trying to get out. Your article deals with 6 days later after a MAJOR evacuation was completed and the population was down to the bare bones.

Uhhh, OK? 6 days after the storm there were still tens of thousands left in the city. What are you talking about? What does it even matter? Is that how you justify the kicking and stomping on the chest of of an unarmed mentally handicapped man with a mortal wound?

[Gaffer]

I read the bill. And as I said those involved are being charged with lying. Not murder or any other capital offense. What part of my post did YOU not understand? The only thing they are being charged with federally is lying, just like clinton. Since when did lying become a capital crime? It might be big news where you are but here in the great white north its not being followed. I didn't even know about it until you brought it up.

So how about giving us your opinion. Should they be executed for lying? Are you positive they are guilty? Is the evidence against them, in your mind, overwhelmingly proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

[SpidermanTUba]

I read the bill. And as I said those involved are being charged with lying. Not murder or any other capital offense. What part of my post did YOU not understand? The only thing they are being charged with federally is lying, just like clinton. Since when did lying become a capital crime? It might be big news where you are but here in the great white north its not being followed. I didn't even know about it until you brought it up.

So how about giving us your opinion. Should they be executed for lying? Are you positive they are guilty? Is the evidence against them, in your mind, overwhelmingly proved beyond a reasonable doubt?



I really tried to word the question so that even the dumbest among us could understand it. Sorry I failed. I will rewrite it to include obvious things you don't get.




IF YOU WERE ON A JURY DECIDING THE FATE OF "OFFICER A" AND "SERGEANT A", WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS BILL OF INFORMATION: http://www.propublica.org/documents/...michael-hunter, AND ASSUMING YOU BELIEVED THOSE FACTS TRUE AT TRIAL, AND THE CHARGE AGAINST THEM WAS VIOLATION OF USC TITLE 18 SECTION 242, "DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW" http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilright...htm#section242, WOULD YOU CONVICT, AND WOULD YOU SENTENCE THEM TO DEATH?

[Mr. P]

What a lame attempt to get folks to come to a conclusion before evidence is presented in trial.

Would I vote death based on a court filing? HELL NO!

I see yer education continues to go to waste, Spider.
Or is this some situation that a Lib professor posed and you're just seeking an answer from those more wise?

[Nukeman]

I really tried to word the question so that even the dumbest among us could understand it. Sorry I failed. I will rewrite it to include obvious things you don't get.




IF YOU WERE ON A JURY DECIDING THE FATE OF "OFFICER A" AND "SERGEANT A", WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS BILL OF INFORMATION: http://www.propublica.org/documents/...michael-hunter, AND ASSUMING YOU BELIEVED THOSE FACTS TRUE AT TRIAL, AND THE CHARGE AGAINST THEM WAS VIOLATION OF USC TITLE 18 SECTION 242, "DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW" http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilright...htm#section242, WOULD YOU CONVICT, AND WOULD YOU SENTENCE THEM TO DEATH?
I would have to see a peer reviewd paper on the full charges before I could make a decision!!!!!!:poke:

[Gaffer]

I really tried to word the question so that even the dumbest among us could understand it. Sorry I failed. I will rewrite it to include obvious things you don't get.




IF YOU WERE ON A JURY DECIDING THE FATE OF "OFFICER A" AND "SERGEANT A", WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS BILL OF INFORMATION: http://www.propublica.org/documents/...michael-hunter, AND ASSUMING YOU BELIEVED THOSE FACTS TRUE AT TRIAL, AND THE CHARGE AGAINST THEM WAS VIOLATION OF USC TITLE 18 SECTION 242, "DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW" http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilright...htm#section242, WOULD YOU CONVICT, AND WOULD YOU SENTENCE THEM TO DEATH?

Make sure you carefully word the question so the answer is only what you want to hear. So far there has been no trial. A juror makes their decision based on the evidence. "DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW" is not a capital crime. So the death penalty is not even on the table. The state and local authorities didn't prosecute these guys so it had to be boosted to a federal level with more abstract laws. It just shows the corruption that still thrives in your state.

[crin63]

Sorry I cant play your game your way. I had to read other sources.

The officers responded to a call that 2 officers were down at a time when the police were dealing with a lot.


"The New Orleans Police Department was overwhelmed," says Anthony Radosti, vice president of the Metropolitan Crime Commission and a former 23-year veteran investigator with the New Orleans police.

"Radio communication was at a minimum. [The police] felt isolated, abandoned. They had no place to live or sleep. Rumors were just wild. Sniper fire, armed individuals on the street. And in some cases, that information was true," Radosti says.

An Arkansas paramedic who rode to the Danziger Bridge with police that morning told NPR that officers were involved in a five-minute gunbattle. He heard people shooting back, but he says he was hiding and he couldn't see who they were.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6063982

The man who's brother was shot in the back and killed admitted that there was group of teenagers shooting at people when he got to the bridge.


Lance says there was a group of teenagers near the bridge shooting at people. He says that when the police arrived, they never identified themselves before opening fire.

It sounds to me like the NOPD made a huge mistake that day. Its tragic that apparently innocent people were maimed and killed. LEO's should be professionals and not cowboys. However in the situation it sounds like they rolled into, mistakes were made in identifying the bad guys and they were overly aggressive. If the police felt somewhat under siege and isolated, armed with bad information that 2 officers were down, I would expect (not necessarily condone) them to act aggressively.

It's a tough call.

[SpidermanTUba]

What a lame attempt to get folks to come to a conclusion before evidence is presented in trial.

Would I vote death based on a court filing? HELL NO!

I see yer education continues to go to waste, Spider.
Or is this some situation that a Lib professor posed and you're just seeking an answer from those more wise?

Are you people seriously this stupid?

[SpidermanTUba]

"DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW" is not a capital crime. So the death penalty is not even on the table.

Seriously, did you just make that up or can you not read?


This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.



http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/statutes.htm#section242



The state and local authorities didn't prosecute these guys so it had to be boosted to a federal level with more abstract laws.

Abstract laws? My friend, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is not an "abstract law" and it is there precisely for cases such as these - when the states refuse to enforce laws protecting civil rights, such as life. Title 18 Section 242 is a law passed under the authority granted Congress by section 5 of the 14th amendment in order to enforce section 1 of the same amendment. Its Congress's constitutional duty to enforce the 14th Amendment through legislation.


Do you seriously not want the 14th amendment enforced?

[SpidermanTUba]

Sorry I cant play your game your way. I had to read other sources.

The officers responded to a call that 2 officers were down at a time when the police were dealing with a lot.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6063982

The man who's brother was shot in the back and killed admitted that there was group of teenagers shooting at people when he got to the bridge.



Aren't the cops supposed to be protecting him from those teenagers instead of killing his brother and then arresting him and attempting to frame him? Last time I checked, seeing a group of teenagers shooting at people did not mean you were guilty of attempting to murder of a cop, that's just fuckin stupid and you know it.





It sounds to me like the NOPD made a huge mistake that day. Its tragic that apparently innocent people were maimed and killed. LEO's should be professionals and not cowboys. However in the situation it sounds like they rolled into, mistakes were made in identifying the bad guys and they were overly aggressive. If the police felt somewhat under siege and isolated, armed with bad information that 2 officers were down, I would expect (not necessarily condone) them to act aggressively.

It's a tough call.





Dude, you are using a 4 year old source. A lot more information has come out since then. Such as the fact that 3 officers have plead guilty to covering up the facts of the incident, another officer has plead guilty to knowledge of the coverup, and a civilian witness has plead guilty to lying to FBI officials to attempt to cover for the police.

The cover up included acts such as a) arresting and falsely charging one of the victim's brothers with attempt to murder a police officer, b) planting a firearm at the scene, c) a conspiracy amongst the officers to make false statements, d) reports on the incident that were falsified, re-falsified, and then re-re-falsified, in a continually changing story. A police Lieutenant, not directly involved in the shooting, who was responsible for investigating the shooting, has already plead guilty to obstruction of justice in federal court as a result of his conspiring to cover the shooting up.

You can read all about it here, http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/bill-of-information-charging-lt-michael-lohman#p=1, but I'm sure you won't, as there are no pretty pictures.


That you can call the kicking and stomping on the chest of an unarmed man on the ground with a shotgun wound to his back - and then arresting his brother and falsely charging him - a "mistake" , and a "tough call", is disturbing. . If it was all just a "mistake" as you say, then why have they spent 5 years covering it up?

[Trigg]

Sorry I cant play your game your way. I had to read other sources.

The officers responded to a call that 2 officers were down at a time when the police were dealing with a lot.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6063982

The man who's brother was shot in the back and killed admitted that there was group of teenagers shooting at people when he got to the bridge.



I agree the police should have identified who exactly was doing the shooting, but I don't think the argument can be made that ALL the people on the bridge were innocents. I don't see why the dead mans brother would lie.

[Mr. P]

Are you people seriously this stupid?

No one here is stupid enough to convict and sentence without trial, cept you I guess.

[SpidermanTUba]

I agree the police should have identified who exactly was doing the shooting, but I don't think the argument can be made that ALL the people on the bridge were innocents. I don't see why the dead mans brother would lie.



You're right. The filthy pig who stomped on the chest of an unarmed man bleeding to death on the ground is most certainly not innocent.


On the other hand, every single civilian on the bridge at the time of the incident was unarmed and not a threat, according to the bill of information on Michael Hunter linked at the top of the thread.


There is no evidence whatsoever any of the civilians present at the time of this incident were a threat - no weapons found, other than the one that Lt. Lohman admitted to planting - AND we have the statement of an officer who participated in the shooting that none of the civilians were a threat, and the admission of two officers directly involved that they covered up the true nature of the shooting to make it appear justified.

But I guess we'll just assume the civilians had guns anyway, that way we don't have to deal with the disturbing reality of the situation.

[SpidermanTUba]

No one here is stupid enough to convict and sentence without trial, cept you I guess.

Congratulations, you are the dumbest person in the universe.



IF YOU WERE ON A JURY DECIDING THE FATE OF "OFFICER A" AND "SERGEANT A", WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS BILL OF INFORMATION: http://www.propublica.org/documents/...michael-hunter, AND ASSUMED YOU BELIEVED THOSE FACTS TRUE AT TRIAL, WOULD YOU FIND EITHER OF THEM GUILTY OF VIOLATING USC TITLE 18 SECTION 242, "DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW" http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilright...htm#section242, AND WOULD YOU SENTENCE THEM TO DEATH?

[Trigg]

You're right. The filthy pig who stomped on the chest of an unarmed man bleeding to death on the ground is most certainly not innocent.


On the other hand, every single civilian on the bridge at the time of the incident was unarmed and not a threat, according to the bill of information on Michael Hunter linked at the top of the thread.


There is no evidence whatsoever any of the civilians present at the time of this incident were a threat - no weapons found, other than the one that Lt. Lohman admitted to planting - AND we have the statement of an officer who participated in the shooting that none of the civilians were a threat, and the admission of two officers directly involved that they covered up the true nature of the shooting to make it appear justified.

But I guess we'll just assume the civilians had guns anyway, that way we don't have to deal with the disturbing reality of the situation.

Yep no evidence other than the victims brother saying that there were some teenagers shooting at people from the bridge. Other than that, nope no evidence of any wrong doing of any kind by the people on the bridge.

Look, the NOPD made a HUGE mistake. It appears that they didn't identify who was doing the shooting, instead they came in with guns blazing. In a perfect world mistakes are never made and innocent people are never hurt.

Stating that officers were under great stress, overworked and understaffed isn't an excuse, it is a fact. It is not an excuse for them trying to cover up their mistake however.

[SpidermanTUba]

[QUOTE]Look, the NOPD made a HUGE mistake.

Please explain how you can call kicking and stomping on an unarmed man bleeding to death on the ground a "mistake"

[crin63]

Aren't the cops supposed to be protecting him from those teenagers instead of killing his brother and then arresting him and attempting to frame him? Last time I checked, seeing a group of teenagers shooting at people did not mean you were guilty of attempting to murder of a cop, that's just fuckin stupid and you know it.

Dude, you are using a 4 year old source. A lot more information has come out since then. Such as the fact that 3 officers have plead guilty to covering up the facts of the incident, another officer has plead guilty to knowledge of the coverup, and a civilian witness has plead guilty to lying to FBI officials to attempt to cover for the police.

The cover up included acts such as a) arresting and falsely charging one of the victim's brothers with attempt to murder a police officer, b) planting a firearm at the scene, c) a conspiracy amongst the officers to make false statements, d) reports on the incident that were falsified, re-falsified, and then re-re-falsified, in a continually changing story. A police Lieutenant, not directly involved in the shooting, who was responsible for investigating the shooting, has already plead guilty to obstruction of justice in federal court as a result of his conspiring to cover the shooting up.

You can read all about it here, http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/bill-of-information-charging-lt-michael-lohman#p=1, but I'm sure you won't, as there are no pretty pictures.


That you can call the kicking and stomping on the chest of an unarmed man on the ground with a shotgun wound to his back - and then arresting his brother and falsely charging him - a "mistake" , and a "tough call", is disturbing. . If it was all just a "mistake" as you say, then why have they spent 5 years covering it up?

Since you're not interested in a rational discussion and all you want is corroboration for your opinion that the officers should punished or executed this is a pointless discussion and I'm out! I'm not interested in trying or convicting them in your court of public opinion.

[SpidermanTUba]

Since you're not interested in a rational discussion and all you want is corroboration for your opinion that the officers should punished or executed this is a pointless discussion and I'm out! I'm not interested in trying or convicting them in your court of public opinion.



All I did was ask how you can classify the beating of an unarmed man in need of immediate medical attention as just a "mistake".

What is so irrational about that? Is it irrational because you have no answer and would prefer not to admit it?