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/...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?

(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/...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?

(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!!!!!!

[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/s...toryId=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.