A Staten Island grand jury voted on Wednesday not to bring criminal charges in the death of Eric Garner, a black man who died after being placed in a chokehold by a white police officer.
The decision was reached after months of testimony, including from the officer who used the chokehold, Daniel Pantaleo. The grand jury reached its decision less than two weeks after a grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., declined to bring charges against a white officer who fatally shot an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown.
An autopsy by the city’s medical examiner found that Mr. Garner’s death was a homicide resulting from the chokehold and the compression of his chest by police officers.
For days, the New York Police Department has been preparing for a new round of protests, which first began in the city after the Ferguson decision and were expected to continue and possibly grow if the grand jury declined to bring charges against the officer.
President Obama said that he was committed to making sure that this is a nation where all citizens believe “in the core principal that we are equal under the law.”
He said he had consulted with Attorney General Eric Holder about the case after the decision was announced.
“We are not going to let up until we see a strengthening of the trust and strengthening of the accountability that exists between our communities and our law enforcement,” Mr. Obama said.
Mayor Bill de Blasio, saying that it was a “deeply emotional day” for the Garner family and all New Yorkers, acknowledged that many people would not agree with the grand jury’s decision.
“Today’s outcome is one that many in our city did not want,” Mr. de Blasio said in a statement. “Yet New York City owns a proud and powerful tradition of expressing ourselves through nonviolent protest. We trust that those unhappy with today’s grand jury decision will make their views known in the same peaceful, constructive way.
“We all agree that demonstrations and free speech are valuable contributions to debate, and that violence and disorder are not only wrong, but hurt the critically important goals we are trying to achieve together.”
The officer at the center of the Staten Island case released a statement offering the family of Mr. Garner his sympathies.
“I became a police officer to help people and to protect those who can’t protect themselves,” Officer Pantaleo said. “It is never my intention to harm anyone, and I feel very bad about the death of Mr. Garner. My family and I include him and his family in our prayers and I hope that they will accept my personal condolences for their loss.”
Jonathan C. Moore, a lawyer for the Garner family, said they hoped that federal prosecutors would continue to examine the case, and he urged people upset by the decision to voice their dismay, but to do so peacefully.
“We’re astounded by the outcome of the grand jury process and that after hearing months of evidence and having deliberated that they would find no true bill as to any potential criminal charge,” Mr. Moore said in a phone interview.
“It’s very upsetting to us – we obviously hope that the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District, Loretta Lynch, will take a close look at this.”
In Ferguson, protesters and police officers clashed in the streets almost immediately after Mr. Brown’s killing by Officer Darren Wilson in August; riots erupted on the night the grand jury’s decision was announced last month. By contrast, in late August, a demonstration on Staten Island over the death of Mr. Garner, 43, proceeded without confrontation or arrest.
Police Commissioner William J. Bratton, speaking at a news conference earlier on Wednesday, said that he expected any protests to be peaceful and that the police were prepared to deal with anyone seeking to cause trouble.
“We have had quite a bit of time to prepare for the events that will unfold here for the next few days,” Mr. Bratton said.
While seeking to ensure that people can voice their opinions, Mr. Bratton said the police would “take forceful action” against those who used the protests to break the law.
The grand jury, impanelled by the Staten Island district attorney, Daniel M. Donovan Jr., in September, has weighed evidence, including a cellphone video recorded by bystanders of Mr. Garner’s violent arrest, and heard testimony from the officers involved.
Grand juries determine whether enough evidence exists for a case to go forward to a criminal trial, either before a jury or a judge. By law, they operate in secret and hear only evidence presented by prosecutors, who also instruct the grand jurors on the law. Defense lawyers are barred from speaking. For a decision, 12 jurors who have heard all the evidence must agree.
In a statement, Mr. Donovan said that he was constrained by law from discussing details of the case but that he had petitioned the court for “authorization to publicly release specific information in connection with this grand jury investigation.”
He expressed his condolences to the family and said that his office conducted a thorough investigation that “spanned four months.”
They conducted “over 38 interviews” and located 22 civilian witnesses, he said. Investigators also spoke with the emergency responders who provided medical treatment both at the scene and at the hospital, and expert witnesses in the area of forensic pathology, policies, procedures, and training of police officers.
“I assured the public that I was committed to a fair, thorough, and responsible investigation into Mr. Garner’s death, and that I would go wherever the evidence took me, without fear or favor,” he said. In the end, he said, the grand jury faithfully executed their duty.
An indictment was considered only against Officer Pantaleo, who testified last, on Nov. 21, his lawyer, Stuart London, said. The other officers received immunity, he said.
The case exposed apparent lapses in police tactics – chokeholds are banned by the Police Department’s own guidelines – and raised questions about the aggressive policing of minor offenses in a time of historically low crime. The officers involved, part of a plainclothes unit, suspected Mr. Garner of selling loose cigarettes on the street near the Staten Island Ferry Terminal, a complaint among local business owners.
Mr. Garner’s death hastened an effort to retrain all the department’s patrol officers and brought scrutiny on how officers who violate its rules are disciplined. Officer Pantaleo has been stripped of his gun and badge.
It was unclear whether Officer Pantaleo would return to enforcement duties. Commissioner Bratton said he would remain on suspension pending an internal investigation by the Police Department.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who is scheduled to hold a news conference with Mr. Garner’s family later in the evening, said that he was not surprised by the decision and that he had little faith in local prosecutors when it came to pursuing cases against the police.
“People thought we were being extreme,” Mr. Sharpton said. “But now, I think you can see, we have no confidence in the state grand juries, whether in Ferguson or in New York, because there is an intrinsic relationship between state prosecutors and the police; they depend on the police for their evidence, they run for office and depend on the unions for endorsements.”
I find it a bit odd that it played out like that. I mean you have evidence of the cop jumping on eric's back and pulling him down by the neck and putting their knee's in his back and him yelling that he couldn't breathe. Then leaving him there and not trying to resuscitate.
1) At the very least, I expected involuntary manslaughter indictment.
2) The evidence that's been reported, even then, it'd be difficult to convict on invol manslaughter.
3) Pet-Peeve: That is NOT a choke hold. That's a headlock. Two very different things.
4) WTF New York? You'd authorize use of force (ie, the police) to enforce cig taxes?!?!
5) Genuinely curious if they'll release the Grand Jury reports.
its selling loose cigarettes that is illegal which is what Eric was apparently doing. And grabbing someone by the neck with crook of the forearm around the adams apple is a choke hold, because it is crushing the trachea causing, you guessed it choking.
4) WTF New York? You'd authorize use of force (ie, the police) to enforce cig taxes?!?!
Hey, he's only dead, you should have seen what would have happened if he was pushing soft drinks larger than the enforced volume. I mean, at least the soul carries on in this case.
1. The suspect is wrestled to the ground. OK. Fine so far. Discussion of the use of a possibly unauthorized technique aside.
2. The suspect exclaims that he cannot breathe. OK. Still fine. As long as he has enough air to express coherent words, he is OK.
3. Suspect stops talking. This is not good. I would have expected to see an immediate reaction from the police officers.
4. The suspect becomes unresponsive. This is very bad. Why isn't any of the officers checking his breathing, pulse and other vitals?
5. No attempt at CPR. This is beyond bad. Why aren't the police officers (who have at least basic first aid training) trying to save this man?
6. EMTs arrive. Suspect doesn't respond to verbal cues. Suspect doesn't respond to physical stimulus. Suspect does not give a clear indication of having a pulse......and the EMT does nothing? Cuffs aren't removed, pupillary response is not checked. AED isn't applied. No attempt at resuscitation.
It depends. I took aikido and a choke was similar to a headlock, but the arm's bend was brought in a squeezing motion about the neck, much better than choking someone normally.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It depends. I took aikido and a choke was similar to a headlock, but the arm's bend was brought in a squeezing motion about the neck, much better than choking someone normally.
I really don't care what various martial arts define a choke hold as (and I have trained Juijitsu (classical. No BJJ for me), Aikido and the hand-to-hand techniques used by the Danish army).
To me, any hold or technique that restricts breathing is a choke hold.
I watched the video really disappointed. I hate these kinda threads so keeping it short seems like they could have apprehended him with a tazer or letting his neck go when they had 5 cops bearing down on him. Or when the one cop placed his knee on Eric's head the other should have released his neck.
But New York is pretty crazy with cops... Dare I say police state?
zombiekila707 wrote: I watched the video really disappointed. I hate these kinda threads so keeping it short seems like they could have apprehended him with a tazer or letting his neck go when they had 5 cops bearing down on him. Or when the one cop placed his knee on Eric's head the other should have released his neck.
But New York is pretty crazy with cops... Dare I say police state?
A police state implies secret prison camps and what not. What is lacking is a system of accountability on the police force
Peregrine wrote: I am absolutely shocked that a white cop killed a black guy for no good reason and didn't face criminal charges. Shocked.
Cops never get in trouble, hell they don't even here in Chicago. I mean it took years for a cop to lose his pension for beating the crap out of a girl in a bar on video.
Peregrine wrote: I am absolutely shocked that a white cop killed a black guy for no good reason and didn't face criminal charges. Shocked.
Stop rabble rousing leftie! You don't even live in NY, do you?
Raliewhatever NC I think...
Was the choke hold though maintain for the entire time?
I saw the cop left arm come around the neck and the right arm come up from under the right arm pit and LEO twisted his (both party) victim to the right and onto the ground.
Jihadin wrote: Was the choke hold though maintain for the entire time?
From the video, it looks like the hold was only maintained for a few seconds after he was taken to the ground, which is something I find puzzling. If someone dies from a choke, they usually die before you let go, not after (unless the windpipe is crushed, which doesn't seem to be the case as he is still breathing and talking after the officer lets go).
Jihadin wrote: Was the choke hold though maintain for the entire time?
From the video, it looks like the hold was only maintained for a few seconds after he was taken to the ground, which is something I find puzzling. If someone dies from a choke, they usually die before you let go, not after (unless the windpipe is crushed, which doesn't seem to be the case as he is still breathing and talking after the officer lets go).
Choking like that caused an asthma attack and having several knees and hands on his back and head pushing him into the ground made it that much harder to breath. Like I said above it was ruled a homicide by two coroners
Jihadin wrote: Was the choke hold though maintain for the entire time?
From the video, it looks like the hold was only maintained for a few seconds after he was taken to the ground, which is something I find puzzling. If someone dies from a choke, they usually die before you let go, not after (unless the windpipe is crushed, which doesn't seem to be the case as he is still breathing and talking after the officer lets go).
Choking like that caused an asthma attack and having several knees and hands on his back and head pushing him into the ground made it that much harder to breath. Like I said above it was ruled a homicide by two coroners
That makes it sound like it was caused more by his poor health than anything else, and it can be a homicide and still not be either murder or manslaughter.
Jihadin wrote: Was the choke hold though maintain for the entire time?
From the video, it looks like the hold was only maintained for a few seconds after he was taken to the ground, which is something I find puzzling. If someone dies from a choke, they usually die before you let go, not after (unless the windpipe is crushed, which doesn't seem to be the case as he is still breathing and talking after the officer lets go).
Choking like that caused an asthma attack and having several knees and hands on his back and head pushing him into the ground made it that much harder to breath. Like I said above it was ruled a homicide by two coroners
That makes it sound like it was caused more by his poor health than anything else, and it can be a homicide and still not be either murder or manslaughter.
But if the actions of an individual cause a chain reaction and death occurs that is at a minimum man slaughter
Jihadin wrote: Was the choke hold though maintain for the entire time?
From the video, it looks like the hold was only maintained for a few seconds after he was taken to the ground, which is something I find puzzling. If someone dies from a choke, they usually die before you let go, not after (unless the windpipe is crushed, which doesn't seem to be the case as he is still breathing and talking after the officer lets go).
Choking like that caused an asthma attack and having several knees and hands on his back and head pushing him into the ground made it that much harder to breath. Like I said above it was ruled a homicide by two coroners
That makes it sound like it was caused more by his poor health than anything else, and it can be a homicide and still not be either murder or manslaughter.
But if the actions of an individual cause a chain reaction and death occurs that is at a minimum man slaughter
Breotan wrote: Some things about this that I have problems with.
1. The city makes it illegal to distribute single cigarettes to people (tax issue of some sort).
2. Overreaction by police results in a man being killed by same police officers.
3. The concept of Wrongful Death is not part of the criminal code - it's civil, ala that lawsuit against O.J. Simpson after his acquittal.
4. Police are given a LOT of legal protections that are unavailable to you and I in situations where use of force results in a death.
You're missing step 1.5:
1.5 - Suspect who is much larger than both officers refuses to comply with the request to put his hands behind his back.
Larger as in fat, not larger as in linebacker for the Miami Dolphins. There is no way the police felt they were in any danger. They were simply dealing with an uncooperative person and overreacted in their attempt to force compliance to their orders. There's also blame to share with the paramedics who apparently didn't do their jobs correctly, either.
Jihadin wrote: Was the choke hold though maintain for the entire time?
From the video, it looks like the hold was only maintained for a few seconds after he was taken to the ground, which is something I find puzzling. If someone dies from a choke, they usually die before you let go, not after (unless the windpipe is crushed, which doesn't seem to be the case as he is still breathing and talking after the officer lets go).
Choking like that caused an asthma attack and having several knees and hands on his back and head pushing him into the ground made it that much harder to breath. Like I said above it was ruled a homicide by two coroners
That makes it sound like it was caused more by his poor health than anything else, and it can be a homicide and still not be either murder or manslaughter.
But if the actions of an individual cause a chain reaction and death occurs that is at a minimum man slaughter
That's not necessarily true.
If the cop had not done the actions that he did, the individual would still be alive, because of his actions someone died. That is the literal definition of manslaughter.
If the cop had not done the actions that he did, the individual would still be alive, because of his actions someone died. That is the literal definition of manslaughter.
If Garner hadn't resisted arrest he'd still be alive.
Regardless, I was surprised that they couldn't indict for a manslaughter charge, which I think they probably should have.
Breotan wrote: Some things about this that I have problems with.
1. The city makes it illegal to distribute single cigarettes to people (tax issue of some sort).
2. Overreaction by police results in a man being killed by same police officers.
3. The concept of Wrongful Death is not part of the criminal code - it's civil, ala that lawsuit against O.J. Simpson after his acquittal.
4. Police are given a LOT of legal protections that are unavailable to you and I in situations where use of force results in a death.
You're missing step 1.5:
1.5 - Suspect who is much larger than both officers refuses to comply with the request to put his hands behind his back.
Larger as in fat, not larger as in linebacker for the Miami Dolphins. There is no way the police felt they were in any danger. They were simply dealing with an uncooperative person and overreacted in their attempt to force compliance to their orders. There's also blame to share with the paramedics who apparently didn't do their jobs correctly, either.
The paramedics failing to help him in a timely manner bothers me much more than the takedown, to be honest (and I'm not saying the takedown was appropriately handled either.)
Ustrello wrote:If the cop had not done the actions that he did, the individual would still be alive, because of his actions someone died. That is the literal definition of manslaughter.
Breotan wrote: Some things about this that I have problems with.
1. The city makes it illegal to distribute single cigarettes to people (tax issue of some sort).
2. Overreaction by police results in a man being killed by same police officers.
3. The concept of Wrongful Death is not part of the criminal code - it's civil, ala that lawsuit against O.J. Simpson after his acquittal.
4. Police are given a LOT of legal protections that are unavailable to you and I in situations where use of force results in a death.
You're missing step 1.5:
1.5 - Suspect who is much larger than both officers refuses to comply with the request to put his hands behind his back.
Larger as in fat, not larger as in linebacker for the Miami Dolphins. There is no way the police felt they were in any danger. They were simply dealing with an uncooperative person and overreacted in their attempt to force compliance to their orders. There's also blame to share with the paramedics who apparently didn't do their jobs correctly, either.
The paramedics failing to help him in a timely manner bothers me much more than the takedown, to be honest (and I'm not saying the takedown was appropriately handled either.)
Ustrello wrote:If the cop had not done the actions that he did, the individual would still be alive, because of his actions someone died. That is the literal definition of manslaughter.
At best it's Criminally Negligent Manslaughter, by definition.
The problem is that I can see how a Grand Jury could justify that the LEO was subduing a resisting criminal, and as such was doing his job, despite the fact that the headlock was against policy in that particular PD.
Eh... here are the issues I'd like to see discussed:
The use of excessive force by police: This is something which may be addressed by the insistence that law enforcement be required to wear body cameras at all times, which I believe it's a measure which New York City is beginning to implement. That doesn't mean it'll actually prevent excessive force, but it'll damn well expose any such event.
The state-level reformation of the grand jury process: The fact that a grand jury could not find probable cause to go to trial when an 'against-policy' hold resulted in a homicide, but could find sufficient evidence to indict the person who filmed this incident (on a gun charge) shouldn’t sit well with anyone. That is a problem imo.
Contraband laws and the criminalization of the nonviolent: There is no reason why a person should be subject to arrest for selling loose cigarettes when that same person would only be subject to a ticket for carrying up to two ounces of marijuana. I mean, seriously... WTF New York!?!?
How this didn't result in an indictment is mind-blowing - videotape of the police restraining a man in the way the department has banned for over 2 decades because it can cause injury, the coroner ruled it a homicide and that cause of death was compression of the neck, and yet no crime was omitted? Mind blown.
I mean jesus, we're not even really pretending that there's the rule of law anymore.
mmm I can't figure this out..... he died because of a chokehold? but It doesn't say he died from asfication.... so how did he murder him? I mean like he died because of poor health and a asima"or how ever you spell it" attack. I mean I get that the cops where the ones who caused it but how can the blame the guy who did the choke hold when the man died later in the hospital when the effects from the hold would be gone but the thing that seems to have killed him was brough on by all cops.
This remind me of that case here in Canada where the guy was aggressive to cops and was hit by a tazer and died do to a bad heart. I guess all I can say is if you have a bad heart or health be very mmmm lawful?
Also whats up with this stuff lately, I hear them say we are told different we are told to respect the cops and do what we are told and calmy even if we didn't do anything wrong just cause we are black.
I don't know about you guys but I was taught that at age 3+ and they came to our school telling us they have a stressful job and the more aggressive we act the more aggressive they need to counter react cause they can't back down but we can. Is this like a American thing?
I haven't been following this...so what the heck is this about charging tax on loose cigarettes? Weren't they already taxed when purchased as a pack/carton? And, in NY, taxed heavily, too...like what?...$7-$8 bucks per pack? I hope there is some hidden kernel of sense in this law, because now a man has died through its' strong armed enforcement.
What next? Illegal 32 ounce Big Gulps??? Cray-cray...
Rusty Trombone wrote: I haven't been following this...so what the heck is this about charging tax on loose cigarettes? Weren't they already taxed when purchased as a pack/carton? And, in NY, taxed heavily, too...like what?...$7-$8 bucks per pack? I hope there is some hidden kernel of sense in this law, because now a man has died through its' strong armed enforcement.
What next? Illegal 32 ounce Big Gulps??? Cray-cray...
No I believe it is illegal to sell loose cigs in NY
Breotan wrote: Some things about this that I have problems with.
1. The city makes it illegal to distribute single cigarettes to people (tax issue of some sort).
2. Overreaction by police results in a man being killed by same police officers.
3. The concept of Wrongful Death is not part of the criminal code - it's civil, ala that lawsuit against O.J. Simpson after his acquittal.
4. Police are given a LOT of legal protections that are unavailable to you and I in situations where use of force results in a death.
You're missing step 1.5:
1.5 - Suspect who is much larger than both officers refuses to comply with the request to put his hands behind his back.
Larger as in fat, not larger as in linebacker for the Miami Dolphins. There is no way the police felt they were in any danger. They were simply dealing with an uncooperative person and overreacted in their attempt to force compliance to their orders. There's also blame to share with the paramedics who apparently didn't do their jobs correctly, either.
The paramedics failing to help him in a timely manner bothers me much more than the takedown, to be honest (and I'm not saying the takedown was appropriately handled either.)
Ustrello wrote:If the cop had not done the actions that he did, the individual would still be alive, because of his actions someone died. That is the literal definition of manslaughter.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but no, it's not.
You can facepalm all you want, that doesn't make your definition of manslaughter correct. The definition can vary based on jurisdiction. What you're describing sounds more like homicide (one person killing another), which can include both murder and manslaughter, but doesn't have to be either.
In the other high profile cases (the kid with the gun, and Michael Brown) you could give the cop the benefit of the doubt, as that toy gun looked pretty real, and Michael Brown tried to take the other cop's gun from him in that particular incident.
But this...
A man dies over the sake of a few cigarettes and the police walk free.
What does a cop have to do to get jail time in the USA?
The only reason I'm not sounding off, is because UK police are equally as bad, equally as negligent, and equally walk away with impunity.
OgreChubbs wrote: mmm I can't figure this out..... he died because of a chokehold? but It doesn't say he died from asfication.... so how did he murder him? I mean like he died because of poor health and a asima"or how ever you spell it" attack. I mean I get that the cops where the ones who caused it but how can the blame the guy who did the choke hold when the man died later in the hospital when the effects from the hold would be gone but the thing that seems to have killed him was brough on by all cops.
He died because of a combination of the actions of the police and his health. The police action was against protocol, excessive for the situation and contributory to the death. If the officer had acted appropriately then this would never have happend.
I don't know about you guys but I was taught that at age 3+ and they came to our school telling us they have a stressful job and the more aggressive we act the more aggressive they need to counter react cause they can't back down but we can. Is this like a American thing?
That is, unfortunately, the attitude of many cops in some areas, and the attitude that causes incidents like this. The idea that to counter aggression you need to be more aggressive until someone backs down. Thats simply not true. These cops need to learn to be assertive, not aggressive. It is quite possible to be assertive, deescalate a situation, and resolve the problem, without backing down. Aggression, especially in a case like this, just escalates the situation. Sometimes overwhelming force, or agression is needed, but in most cases being assertive rather than aggressive is a far better way to calm the situation and get what you want. Basic negotiation skills.
I was under the impression that it was not compression of the neck that killed him but compression of the chest. After being forced to the ground the choke hold was released, the officers on top of the individuals torso is what caused him to stop breathing. The officers were on top of the individual to hold him down as he was uncooperative.
In anticipation of the grand-jury announcement, the New York Police Department has started preparing for large-scale protests.As police commissioner William Bratton told the press, “We have the ability to have a level of tolerance—breathing room, if you will.”
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out why this one didn't go to charges.
Any argument to resisting arrest ends shortly after this guy is surrounded.
I don't see a racism angle. I see bad policing to the level of criminality.
Maybe they were thinking along the lines of that it was a combination of a long series of unfortunate events that had the un-forseen consequence of leading to the suspects death.
An incident like that should certainly lead to introspection and more than a quick once-over of the procedures in place, but wouldn't justify bringing charges against any single officer.
Please note, I am not trying to defend anybody here. My previous posts on this subject are clear. I am merely trying to take a guess at what they might have been thinking.
The NYPD stated that no cause to indict was found, as LEOs are allowed to use lethal force when allowing a suspect to escape could legitimately lead to the death or injury of other citizens. "Mr. Garner was selling cigarettes and that surgeon general's warning ain't there for nothin'. In a city as densely populated as NYC, the second hand smoke would have killed billions" said the chief.
avatarofawesome wrote: The NYPD stated that no cause to indict was found, as LEOs are allowed to use lethal force when allowing a suspect to escape could legitimately lead to the death or injury of other citizens. "Mr. Garner was selling cigarettes and that surgeon general's warning ain't there for nothin'. In a city as densely populated as NYC, the second hand smoke would have killed billions" said the chief.
And this is probably true knowing the NYC Police Department.
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out why this one didn't go to charges.
Any argument to resisting arrest ends shortly after this guy is surrounded.
I don't see a racism angle. I see bad policing to the level of criminality.
Maybe they were thinking along the lines of that it was a combination of a long series of unfortunate events that had the un-forseen consequence of leading to the suspects death.
An incident like that should certainly lead to introspection and more than a quick once-over of the procedures in place, but wouldn't justify bringing charges against any single officer.
Please note, I am not trying to defend anybody here. My previous posts on this subject are clear. I am merely trying to take a guess at what they might have been thinking.
I hear you. In many departments there needs to be a serious cultural and management shift from "policing" to community policing: aka don't let it get to the point you need a violent takedown of someone ESPECIALLY for a minor charge. That involves training, management, and a complete cultural shift.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting if you really look at the video, he's not complaining badly until the swarm of officers on him, especially the one pressing on his chest.
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out why this one didn't go to charges.
Any argument to resisting arrest ends shortly after this guy is surrounded.
I don't see a racism angle. I see bad policing to the level of criminality.
Maybe they were thinking along the lines of that it was a combination of a long series of unfortunate events that had the un-forseen consequence of leading to the suspects death.
An incident like that should certainly lead to introspection and more than a quick once-over of the procedures in place, but wouldn't justify bringing charges against any single officer.
Please note, I am not trying to defend anybody here. My previous posts on this subject are clear. I am merely trying to take a guess at what they might have been thinking.
I hear you. In many departments there needs to be a serious cultural and management shift from "policing" to community policing: aka don't let it get to the point you need a violent takedown of someone ESPECIALLY for a minor charge. That involves training, management, and a complete cultural shift.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting if you really look at the video, he's not complaining badly until the swarm of officers on him, especially the one pressing on his chest.
Yeah, its quite clear that he is in distress at that point.
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out why this one didn't go to charges.
Any argument to resisting arrest ends shortly after this guy is surrounded.
I don't see a racism angle. I see bad policing to the level of criminality.
Agreed.
I thought I heard on radio that they're going to release the GJ reports. I tried google-fuing, but I'm not seeing anything... have you?
yeah, choke holds are banned moves for a very good reason.
I think there was a distinct lack of profesionalism in this case, which is par for the course with NYC cops, who have a horrible rep for a good reason.
Id say criminal charges should be laid, as it cannot even be claimed that the cop "was doing his job" in this case, as he wasnt following the proceedures, and was in fact, using banned methods (choke hold) in direct violation of his training.
when the poor man is on the ground gasping that he cannot breathe, not one cop takes it seriously either, a serious breach of protocol too, at least up here it would be.
Automatically Appended Next Post: but just because there are so many UK or aussie people complaining its US thing, its not.
"Police brutality has been hitting the headlines in the US, but now it seems the unfortunate trend has made its way to Australia. The woman in question, Claire Helen, who works as a model and actress and was on the receiving end of recurring blows from a police officer, said: “It was the most frightening and humiliating experience of my life.”
Law enforcement officers allege that Helen punched a policewoman in the mouth, as well as resisting arrest – an action that the model stringently denies. "They pushed me down. They hit me and kicked me. They pulled my dress over my head," she said, speaking to Channel Nine. Onlookers could be heard shouting, "Let her go," and, "She's not resisting arrest.”
Don't resist arrest. Once a cop say's "Your under Arrest" then options are made available for him/her to effect that arrest. There was an Black NCO LEO there and she did not say a word at all in the process of Garner getting taking down
Jihadin wrote: Don't resist arrest. Once a cop say's "Your under Arrest" then options are made available for him/her to effect that arrest. There was an Black NCO LEO there and she did not say a word at all in the process of Garner getting taking down
a civilian 100% should not resist arrest, this is true, holding the civvie accountable for resisting arrest would be fitting.
but cops should follow proper proceedures when arresting, that someone resists arrest does not justify banned proceedures for arresting them.
choke holds are 100% not proper proceedure, so while I would also support charging the dead guy with resisting arrest, the cop should also face punishment for breaking proceedure, and bear his share of responsability
Black NCO
Then on her incident reportwhatever testimony she either lied to help cover the white LEO or what appear to be the choke hold was not a choke hold.
Guys. don't you think saying this isn't about race is a bit shortsighted. given the context of the US justice system? I mean we know it's biased against black and Hispanic people. All the statistics point to that. And we've got incident after incident after sorry incident like this.
I'm pro-police, but it does the good cops absolutely no good if the bad ones can walk away from stuff like this. It's bad for the entire society if people, or just a significant segment of people, think they can't trust the police.
Da Boss wrote: Guys. don't you think saying this isn't about race is a bit shortsighted. given the context of the US justice system? I mean we know it's biased against black and Hispanic people. All the statistics point to that. And we've got incident after incident after sorry incident like this.
There are lots of statistics that point to lots of things. We have no reason to think this was about race, whatsoever.
You know, It would be a little less disingenuous of him, or any of the mainstream media, if they'd pay attention to the DILLON TAYLOR CASE AT ALL.
It's a cop issue. It's a due process issue. Not a race issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, and Likely you don't because it wasn't covered AT ALL by Stewart, or MSNBC, or CNN:
Da Boss wrote: Guys. don't you think saying this isn't about race is a bit shortsighted. given the context of the US justice system? I mean we know it's biased against black and Hispanic people. All the statistics point to that. And we've got incident after incident after sorry incident like this.
There are lots of statistics that point to lots of things. We have no reason to think this was about race, whatsoever.
I hate Insurgents. I despise them. I will try my best to opting them out by firing back in anger. Once he puts that weapon down and surrender then he becomes an individual. Yet I do not hold this view towards Muslims. 23 years in a system and I am not biased
Except on Road Check Points and I best see everyone hands Up Around Their Shoulders
You know, It would be a little less disingenuous of him, or any of the mainstream media, if they'd pay attention to the DILLON TAYLOR CASE AT ALL.
It's a cop issue. It's a due process issue. Not a race issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, and Likely you don't because it wasn't covered AT ALL by Stewart, or MSNBC, or CNN:
You do know that Stewart isn't a News Anchor, right?
Yes, but as numerous studies and polls have shown, more and more young people get their actual news from him and Colbert, and those like them.
As such, I think he actually has a very powerful platform to "control" or alter opinion. I think that he realizes this (he's not stupid) and chooses his material accordingly. Yes, he's making fun of some of the absurd things done by the various facets of government, but I think there is still some truth to be gained from it.
We have no reason to think this was about race, whatsoever.
Well, aside from the fact that the victim was black.
I mean, I highly doubt that the relevant officers went out thinking "Lets go feth with some black people!" but it would be foolish to conclude that the absence of such overt racism indicates that race was not a factor at all. Not that it matters, as the real issue is bad policing.
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out why this one didn't go to charges.
Any argument to resisting arrest ends shortly after this guy is surrounded.
I don't see a racism angle. I see bad policing to the level of criminality.
With Frazzled on this kettle of fish. It should be worth noting that the NYPD pays out millions every year in excessive or wrongful use of force cases to the tune of about $3000 per officer (and the NYPD has some 34,000 officers). This is bad policing and corruption that's been going on in NYC for a very long time now, and it needs to change.
You do know that Stewart isn't a News Anchor, right?
Yes, but as numerous studies and polls have shown, more and more young people get their actual news from him and Colbert, and those like them.
What it says that a comedian is seen as more trustworthy than journalists is kinda jaw dropping in a way. His point is a pretty good one and if I can give jon stewart any priase it's that the man is the definition of brevity and his ability to boil things down to the core is the thing of legends.
Frazzled wrote: Trying to figure out why this one didn't go to charges.
Any argument to resisting arrest ends shortly after this guy is surrounded.
I don't see a racism angle. I see bad policing to the level of criminality.
With Frazzled on this kettle of fish. It should be worth noting that the NYPD pays out millions every year in excessive or wrongful use of force cases to the tune of about $3000 per officer (and the NYPD has some 34,000 officers). This is bad policing and corruption that's been going on in NYC for a very long time now, and it needs to change.
yeah, resisting arrest is only a legit claim when the methods of arrest are also legit.
in this case, the method of arrest was 100% not legitimate, and something the police have explicitly outlawed as a valid method of arrest.
protecting police for doing their job, stops when they are not doing the job as trained.
NYC it particular has a horrible problem with how their PD is run too, and how the city is governed in general.
You do know that Stewart isn't a News Anchor, right?
Yes, but as numerous studies and polls have shown, more and more young people get their actual news from him and Colbert, and those like them.
As such, I think he actually has a very powerful platform to "control" or alter opinion. I think that he realizes this (he's not stupid) and chooses his material accordingly. Yes, he's making fun of some of the absurd things done by the various facets of government, but I think there is still some truth to be gained from it.
The reason for this is because mainstream media outlets are simply not reporting factual issues. They're reporting opinions as fact, and this is as true of MSNBC as it is Fox News. The mainstream media is entirely controlled by corporate interests, and those interests do not include telling you just the facts about anything, but only the story they want you to hear.
Da Boss wrote: Guys. don't you think saying this isn't about race is a bit shortsighted. given the context of the US justice system? I mean we know it's biased against black and Hispanic people. All the statistics point to that. And we've got incident after incident after sorry incident like this.
There are lots of statistics that point to lots of things. We have no reason to think this was about race, whatsoever.
Yeah, except lots of things are still about race.
Ignoring it doesn't make it go away and not understanding doesn't make it any less true.
Da Boss wrote: Guys. don't you think saying this isn't about race is a bit shortsighted. given the context of the US justice system? I mean we know it's biased against black and Hispanic people. All the statistics point to that. And we've got incident after incident after sorry incident like this.
There are lots of statistics that point to lots of things. We have no reason to think this was about race, whatsoever.
Yeah, except lots of things are still about race.
Ignoring it doesn't make it go away and not understanding doesn't make it any less true.
I'll clarify.
I meant statistics can be used to support pretty much anything, even opposite sides of the coin using the same set of stats. I've seen people citing the number of black males killed by police in 2014, and all of the people including those stats fail to include how many of them were killed while exchanging fire with police, etc. I'm not saying its right, wrong, or indifferent, simply that numbers can often be used to mislead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Get off the race baiting. The victim could have been any color. This is just cops running bad.
Agreed.
Which is why I think it really speaks to the mainstream media's overall agenda that the Dillon Taylor case in Utah hasn't been covered at all.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Huh? Are you saying that the media is creating the racial tension or something.
Absolutely.
In this case that is false. There is already a strained relationship between the NYCPD and the minority communities in NYC. Now media outlets often take advantage of the racial tension for more viewership, but they did not create it, merely took advantage of what was already there to make more money. The tension is already here, the news outlets merely make it worse than it already is.
I meant statistics can be used to support pretty much anything, even opposite sides of the coin using the same set of stats. I've seen people citing the number of black males killed by police in 2014, and all of the people including those stats fail to include how many of them were killed while exchanging fire with police, etc. I'm not saying its right, wrong, or indifferent, simply that numbers can often be used to mislead.
You didn't need to clarify anything, I knew exactly what you are saying.
When statistics disagree with what you believe, you dismiss them as "just being statistics." And hey, why not? It's a lot easier to do that than address the idea that there may be a problem. Of course, I'm sure you would never use statistics in support of something you agree with...
Which is why I think it really speaks to the mainstream media's overall agenda that the Dillon Taylor case in Utah hasn't been covered at all.
"You guys need to stop race-baiting, it's bad. Now allow me to race-bait..."
And the Dillon Taylor shooting was covered. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. And before you ask, "Yeah, well why didn't all the white people riot after that?" It's because they were too busy doing this:
Spoiler:
After a baseball team won some games against another baseball team.
And the Dillon Taylor shooting was covered. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. And before you ask, "Yeah, well why didn't all the white people riot after that?" It's because they were too busy doing this:
Nope, I wasn't even going to make that point.
The important point is that the Dillon Taylor case supports that in a lot of these cases, it isn't race, but bad or overzealous policing as the problem.
I've already said, multiple times in this thread, that I'm very surprised that the LEO in Garner's case wasn't indicted for criminally negligent manslaughter. I think he should have been, especially since he used departmentally prohibited technique. For that reason, I think when the family brings a wrongful death suit against the NYPD, they're going to win big, and easily.
White people are never going to riot over white people getting killed. Most of us don't identify with other white people as "our brothers" like people in the black community do. I can't think of a single reason I'd call another white person a "race traitor/Uncle Tom" like black people have to Charles Barkley, or Ben Carson, or Allen West. I just don't think they're ever going to be similar situations, because, as I said, the majority of us don't identify like that. "White guy" wouldn't crack my top 10 for things I'd use to describe me, whereas I know "black man" is in the top three for many of my black friends. We've had the discussion quite a bit. It's a huge cultural difference that I won't ever be able to relate to, in part, because I'm not in the minority.
Oh, and yes, I think the dude bashing in the bus is a thug and should go to prison.
The important point is that the Dillon Taylor case supports that in a lot of these cases, it isn't race, but bad or overzealous policing as the problem.
Yes, and what you are failing to either admit or realize, is that this "bad policing" affects minorities much more frequently than anyone else. Now I know that conclusion is based on statistics, and you now do not like statistics because reasons, but it that doesn't make it any less of a reality.
The important point is that the Dillon Taylor case supports that in a lot of these cases, it isn't race, but bad or overzealous policing as the problem.
Yes, and what you are failing to either admit or realize, is that this "bad policing" affects minorities much more frequently than anyone else. Now I know that conclusion is based on statistics, and you now do not like statistics because reasons, but it that doesn't make it any less of a reality.
Which I believe is due to policy more than "a bunch of racist cops running around," which is the prevailing narrative that many people are pushing right now. That's the problem I have.
But the whole thing is a chicken and the egg scenario in the first place. All I know is that if you don't break the law you won't typically be arrested. Know your rights and all that.
Which I believe is due to policy more than "a bunch of racist cops running around," which is the prevailing narrative that many people are pushing right now. That's the problem I have.
So the problem you have right now is that things like this happen because it's "policies" that perpetuate a racially biased law enforcement system instead of the public officials who carry out said policy?
Which I believe is due to policy more than "a bunch of racist cops running around," which is the prevailing narrative that many people are pushing right now. That's the problem I have.
So the problem you have right now is that things like this happen because it's "policies" that perpetuate a racially biased law enforcement system instead of the public officials who carry out said policy?
I'm sure that's a heavy burden for you to carry.
I'm not carrying any burden.
I don't break the law so I don't care.
I think, in the strict context of the Garner case, that the overzealous enforcement of something like a dude selling loosies (though, according to reports, local stores were complaining about it) is probably prejudicial towards blacks and hispanics in cities.
Do I think the force used on Garner was unnecessary? Absolutely.
Do I think the LEO should have been indicted for criminally negligent manslaughter? Absolutely.
Do I think Garner would be alive had he complied with police when they originally tried to cuff him? Absolutely.
I'm sure you have never once broken any law ever in your life.
I think, in the strict context of the Garner case, that the overzealous enforcement of something like a dude selling loosies (though, according to reports, local stores were complaining about it) is probably prejudicial towards blacks and hispanics in cities.
Do I think the force used on Garner was unnecessary? Absolutely.
Do I think the LEO should have been indicted for criminally negligent manslaughter? Absolutely.
Good, good... you're making real progress here. Keep going...
Do I think Garner would be alive had he complied with police when they originally tried to cuff him? Absolutely.
Dammit! You were on a hot streak and you just ruined it! So, so close... Oh well, maybe next time, I have a funny feeling we won't have to wait long to have this exact conversation again.
I'm sure you have never once broken any law ever in your life.
Sure I do. I always speed. I don't ever wear my seatbelt. Sometimes I text and drive (I really try not to, though, because it really is unsafe). I open my wife's mail sometimes, too. So I guess there's that. And I have occasionally partaken (partook?) in some of nature's finer things. But that's about it.
Dammit! You were on a hot streak and you just ruined it! So, so close... Oh well, maybe next time, I have a funny feeling we won't have to wait long to have this exact conversation again.
I'm sure we will. It doesn't make the statement any less true, nor does it make the LEO's response any more appropriate.
Sure I do. I always speed. I don't ever wear my seatbelt. Sometimes I text and drive (I really try not to, though, because it really is unsafe). I open my wife's mail sometimes, too. So I guess there's that. And I have occasionally partaken (partook?) in some of nature's finer things. But that's about it.
And the odds of any of those things getting you choked, beaten, or shot to death by an LEO carrying out their department's poor "policies" are astronomically low, so at least you have that going for you. Also, I see you are part of the reason automobile insurance is stupidly expensive, so thanks for that.
I'm sure we will. It doesn't make the statement any less true, nor does it make the LEO's response any more appropriate.
It's not true.
I'm just spit-balling, but hear me out: instead trying to arrest a citizen who posed no threat allegedly committing a minor, nonviolent offense, how about issuing said citizen a citation and moving on.
And the odds of any of those things getting you choked, beaten, or shot to death by an LEO carrying out their department's poor "policies" are astronomically low, so at least you have that going for you
Quite true.
Also, I see you are part of the reason automobile insurance is stupidly expensive, so thanks for that.
It's not true.
Well, I mean, it is.
I'm just spit-balling, but hear me out: instead trying to arrest a citizen who posed no threat allegedly committing a minor, nonviolent offense, how about issuing said citizen a citation and moving on.
Nothing really mind blowing about it...I agree with that.
I've seen people citing the number of black males killed by police in 2014, and all of the people including those stats fail to include how many of them were killed while exchanging fire with police, etc.
I'm just spit-balling, but hear me out: instead trying to arrest a citizen who posed no threat allegedly committing a minor, nonviolent offense, how about issuing said citizen a citation and moving on.
I'm still trying to figure out why there were 2 plainclothes cops in the vicinity at all.
How did the situation build up to involve that many LEO's in the first place
Edit
Geraldo nailed it.
Indict the LEO but the possibility of Acquittel (spelling off this morning) is strong outcome of a verdict. They're pinning the death on the choke hold applied by the one officer but not the 4-5 other guys piled on top the guy
So can words, and not even necessarily as the result of intention, as your above use of the word "all" nicely demonstrates.
That's fair. Rephrase:
All the articles I've read on the usual sites (MSNBC, CNN, various facebook nonsense) have included the number of black men killed without situational context.
I'm still trying to figure out why there were 2 plainclothes cops in the vicinity at all.
It seems like, from the interaction, that they'd probably had interactions with Garner in the past. There seemed to be some familiarity there. I think I'd also read/heard (can't be sure) that some of the other local stores had called to complain that Garner was selling loosies and costing them money, or something like that.
And the Dillon Taylor shooting was covered. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. And before you ask, "Yeah, well why didn't all the white people riot after that?" It's because they were too busy doing this:
Nope, I wasn't even going to make that point.
The important point is that the Dillon Taylor case supports that in a lot of these cases, it isn't race, but bad or overzealous policing as the problem.
I've already said, multiple times in this thread, that I'm very surprised that the LEO in Garner's case wasn't indicted for criminally negligent manslaughter. I think he should have been, especially since he used departmentally prohibited technique. For that reason, I think when the family brings a wrongful death suit against the NYPD, they're going to win big, and easily.
White people are never going to riot over white people getting killed. Most of us don't identify with other white people as "our brothers" like people in the black community do. I can't think of a single reason I'd call another white person a "race traitor/Uncle Tom" like black people have to Charles Barkley, or Ben Carson, or Allen West. I just don't think they're ever going to be similar situations, because, as I said, the majority of us don't identify like that. "White guy" wouldn't crack my top 10 for things I'd use to describe me, whereas I know "black man" is in the top three for many of my black friends. We've had the discussion quite a bit. It's a huge cultural difference that I won't ever be able to relate to, in part, because I'm not in the minority.
Oh, and yes, I think the dude bashing in the bus is a thug and should go to prison.
Y'know I made this specific argument against you before about why people where upset at raven symone, and you shut me doing saying that the argument was ridiculous
And the Dillon Taylor shooting was covered. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. And before you ask, "Yeah, well why didn't all the white people riot after that?" It's because they were too busy doing this:
Nope, I wasn't even going to make that point.
The important point is that the Dillon Taylor case supports that in a lot of these cases, it isn't race, but bad or overzealous policing as the problem.
I've already said, multiple times in this thread, that I'm very surprised that the LEO in Garner's case wasn't indicted for criminally negligent manslaughter. I think he should have been, especially since he used departmentally prohibited technique. For that reason, I think when the family brings a wrongful death suit against the NYPD, they're going to win big, and easily.
White people are never going to riot over white people getting killed. Most of us don't identify with other white people as "our brothers" like people in the black community do. I can't think of a single reason I'd call another white person a "race traitor/Uncle Tom" like black people have to Charles Barkley, or Ben Carson, or Allen West. I just don't think they're ever going to be similar situations, because, as I said, the majority of us don't identify like that. "White guy" wouldn't crack my top 10 for things I'd use to describe me, whereas I know "black man" is in the top three for many of my black friends. We've had the discussion quite a bit. It's a huge cultural difference that I won't ever be able to relate to, in part, because I'm not in the minority.
Oh, and yes, I think the dude bashing in the bus is a thug and should go to prison.
Y'know I made this specific argument against you before about why people where upset at raven symone, and you shut me doing saying that the argument was ridiculous
You'll have to show me. I think "defending your race" is ridiculous in general.
-ing Ouze.
