`NYC grand jury to return no indictment in police choke hold case`

[LongTermGuy]

Quote:

<tbody>
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A New York City grand jury on Wednesday returned no indictment against a white police officer who used a choke hold on Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, while arresting him for illegally selling cigarettes, local media reported.

</tbody>

Video...text..

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-grand-jury-return-no-indictment-police-choke-193254083.html

*******************************************

`Why don't these people just listen to the cops, selling illegal cigarettes and not letting the cops arrest him(wow). They need a mandatory class for all blacks how to surrender to police and do not give them a ration of sh$t, that is just cocky stupidity`

`But.... I don't think that cop was thinking about a so called choke rule when trying to take 350 lb water buffalo to the ground...... he shouldn't of resisted = root cause`

[LongTermGuy]

​`Here we go again...Obama on TV `now` talking about it....

[LongTermGuy]

`31 prior arrests (Fox News).....His family wanting to sue....( wants millions)`

[Anton Chigurh]

Nothing illegal was done by the cops in this case. The chokehold itself, while banned for use by the department, is still legal to clamp on people.

Good no bill, but the officer I am sure will face some punishment for using the banned maneuver.

[LongTermGuy]

Nothing illegal was done by the cops in this case. The chokehold itself, while banned for use by the department, is still legal to clamp on people.

Good no bill, but the officer I am sure will face some punishment for using the banned maneuver.


now we wait for results for bruising around neck....if any and what killed him....

His attitude and fatness killed him...IMO

[aboutime]

Looks like...as soon as Al (Notso)Sharpton gets back to the Big Rotten Apple. They are all planning for

Ferguson Part II. Hopefully, Al will mess with the wrong NYPD cop, and experience a demonstration Choke of his own.

"We can only hope!"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nothing illegal was done by the cops in this case. The chokehold itself, while banned for use by the department, is still legal to clamp on people.

Good no bill, but the officer I am sure will face some punishment for using the banned maneuver.

No choke hold was used. The officer used a head lock which in legal terms is not a choke hold. Also there was no permanent damage to his throat. He died from being in poor health and over exertion as an aggravating factor. The officer did no damage to his neck /throat and did not use a choke hold.
Finding was the man was not choked..
Sad that he died but again its a trumped up case being used to continue this stir up the blacks narrative.

I've used head locks before in my job and even used choke holds(rarely) and the two are vastly different---head lock is far less dangerous and far less effective.
Head lock is used to take the body down because the body always follows the head. A 350 pound body will follow that head down--the trick is to take the head down by power , weight and momentum.

Verdict was just, but that matters not. The excuse to cry out and demand more because of persecution is there and will be played on by the race pimps, the Dems, the media , Obama and his corrupt administration.-Tyr

[LongTermGuy]

`So why did he on that day decide to resist arrest?

*Maybe on that day he decided to show the real criminals in the 'hood that he was also a playa.`

[red states rule]

and now words of wisdom from Chris Matthews.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhaqezOUt4

[Jeff]

`So why did he on that day decide to resist arrest?

*Maybe on that day he decided to show the real criminals in the 'hood that he was also a playa.`

Yup and mow he is one dead ass fat Playa

[glockmail]

Another fat criminal dead. Meh.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now, now , gentlemen --these are dead heroes, clean and pure as the wind driven snow.
Think not? Just ask the black caucus, the media and the buffoon Obama.
Mean old whitey, dun bin keeping da black man down agin'....;)

black caucus, now there is a fine, fair and honest bunch --free from any bias and so full of tolerance and virtue. :rolleyes: Tyr

[aboutime]

and now words of wisdom from Chris Matthews.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhaqezOUt4


Pardon me for daring to say this here but....The three idiots in that video are just SHITHEADS, empty brains, oozing ignorance, hatred, and stupidity on a grand scale. Between all three of them. If Cotton was brains. There wouldn't be enough between them all to Kotex an Ant.

[red states rule]

and another liberal icon speaks


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzl6DZD-YPo

[LongTermGuy]

and another liberal icon speaks


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzl6DZD-YPo

Leftists Pig....

[Trigg]

ok, so it wasn't a choke hold.

But really, why did the cop jump on the guy anyway? There were 4-5 cops in that video, the black guy was gesturing and bitching, but he didn't have any weapons he wasn't attaching them. What ever happened to defusing the situation?

Couldn't the cops have talked calmly? Let the guy vent a little?

A man is dead IMO because the cop in question didn't feel like talking to him, he simply wanted to take him down. I disagree with the grand jury.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz120414dAPR20141204014518.jpg

[5stringJeff]

ok, so it wasn't a choke hold.

But really, why did the cop jump on the guy anyway? There were 4-5 cops in that video, the black guy was gesturing and bitching, but he didn't have any weapons he wasn't attaching them. What ever happened to defusing the situation?

Couldn't the cops have talked calmly? Let the guy vent a little?

A man is dead IMO because the cop in question didn't feel like talking to him, he simply wanted to take him down. I disagree with the grand jury.

My thoughts exactly. This wasn't a repeat of Michael Brown's case, where someone was charging a cop. This is a case of excessive force. The cop clearly caused Garner's death, whether by asphyxiation or simply through the physical altercation.

And shouldn't all the free marketers on DP be up in arms about the reason Garner was stopped in the first place? He was selling cigarettes on the black market, due to NYC's insanely high cigarette tax. If NYC didn't tax cigarettes so highly, there would be less crime on the street, and Eric Garner wouldn't be getting choked out.

[aboutime]

As a failing nation of perpetual victims. We are all complicit in the destruction of our nation with excessive laws that cause our people to distrust, and disobey laws that ONLY POLITICIANS profit from often stupid laws only they reap the rewards from. This man didn't need to die for any reason, other than because a Politician wanted to stop tax cheaters. Like Al Sharpton.

[LongTermGuy]

My thoughts exactly. This wasn't a repeat of Michael Brown's case, where someone was charging a cop. This is a case of excessive force. The cop clearly caused Garner's death, whether by asphyxiation or simply through the physical altercation.

And shouldn't all the free marketers on DP be up in arms about the reason Garner was stopped in the first place? He was selling cigarettes on the black market, due to NYC's insanely high cigarette tax. If NYC didn't tax cigarettes so highly, there would be less crime on the street, and Eric Garner wouldn't be getting choked out.


`Your missing the point.....*he was `being arrested`...(31 previous violations) he refused...his hands are the key.....*Normal people comply and work it out in court.....Thugs feel disrespected and wanna fight "the man" ....Black ...white...makes no difference...One complies with the law...non of this low-info Gangsta fighting back SHIT....When shtf....that's a different story...then its a free for all...right now we still have laws and the court system...

​*Again...he `was being arrested`...He refused....don't matter if its cigs...or a stick of gum....The left keeps crying..."it was just cigarettes" .....what are the Police supposed to do with tuff guys who says fuck you...let the scum walk??

The Thug killed himself....

[glockmail]

Trigg and Jeff, you both seem to forget that this is New York City we're talking about. It's not a place where free markets are allowed to exist...

[Kathianne]

My thoughts exactly. This wasn't a repeat of Michael Brown's case, where someone was charging a cop. This is a case of excessive force. The cop clearly caused Garner's death, whether by asphyxiation or simply through the physical altercation.

And shouldn't all the free marketers on DP be up in arms about the reason Garner was stopped in the first place? He was selling cigarettes on the black market, due to NYC's insanely high cigarette tax. If NYC didn't tax cigarettes so highly, there would be less crime on the street, and Eric Garner wouldn't be getting choked out.

I too question why one officer used the hold on a non-violent person. However, I heard that the hold was taught in the academy, thus the question in my mind is why was it used in this instance? Then too comes the question of whether it actually caused his death or there was some underlying condition that took his life? If the grand jury had found to bring the case to court, the facts would have become public.

Now this is being coupled with the very different case in Ferguson. A real shame.

[LongTermGuy]

*****Its a big darn shame that America has to go through this night after night...and feed the low info protesters / looters........Because some feel they are above the Law...nowadays....and would rather fight...than take it to court to settle any accusations/differences and legalities...

[aboutime]

`Your missing the point.....*he was `being arrested`...(31 previous violations) he refused...his hands are the key.....*Normal people comply and work it out in court.....Thugs feel disrespected and wanna fight "the man" ....Black ...white...makes no difference...One complies with the law...non of this low-info Gangsta fighting back SHIT....When shtf....that's a different story...then its a free for all...right now we still have laws and the court system...

​*Again...he `was being arrested`...He refused....don't matter if its cigs...or a stick of gum....The left keeps crying..."it was just cigarettes" .....what are the Police supposed to do with tuff guys who says fuck you...let the scum walk??

The Thug killed himself....


The other, more important fact very few have been willing to mention is; look at the man's size, compared to all of the police officers there. The man was being arrested. He resisted, tried to allude the officers. So, they did the best they could with what they had to work with.
Anyone who has never been in that position, as a police officer CAN'T POSSIBLY know what they were trying to do to protect themselves, while enforcing laws POLITICIANS instructed them to Enforce.

To anyone who says I am defending the cops. You're damned right I am. If I ever dial 911, hoping for police protection. I would rather have an officer with a badge, and weapon show up, than a member of the Black Panther's...busting my head open because I don't like Obama.

[tailfins]

As a failing nation of perpetual victims. We are all complicit in the destruction of our nation with excessive laws that cause our people to distrust, and disobey laws that ONLY POLITICIANS profit from often stupid laws only they reap the rewards from. This man didn't need to die for any reason, other than because a Politician wanted to stop tax cheaters. Like Al Sharpton.

Listened to Limbaugh today did ya'? I listened to the details that selling "loosies" was what caused him to be targeted also and the comparison to Sharpton. It's pretty classless to pass this off as your own idea!

[5stringJeff]

`Your missing the point.....*he was `being arrested`...(31 previous violations) he refused...his hands are the key.....*Normal people comply and work it out in court.....Thugs feel disrespected and wanna fight "the man" ....Black ...white...makes no difference...One complies with the law...non of this low-info Gangsta fighting back SHIT....When shtf....that's a different story...then its a free for all...right now we still have laws and the court system...

​*Again...he `was being arrested`...He refused....don't matter if its cigs...or a stick of gum....The left keeps crying..."it was just cigarettes" .....what are the Police supposed to do with tuff guys who says fuck you...let the scum walk??

The Thug killed himself....

And how many people in America resist arrest and are subdued without the police killing them?

[Kathianne]

The police are right to be concerned about young males and crime. Yes, they are right to be concerned about young, black males, the crime rates support that.

However, for these very reasons the police need to be aware of the likelihood of suspicion falling upon the innocent.

Problem is with both these newsworthy cases, there are differences between the two, that are now being juxtaposed.

Wilson was attacked. Grand Jury confirmed that.

Garner was a minor lawbreaker, selling blackmarket cigs. Blame NY laws for making that so profitable. In any case, while he'd an extensive legal record, none was violent. All were for 'entrepreneurship' of a not legal manner. He shouldn't be dead from that.

However, is he dead because of policeman action-which seem to me to have been excessive? We'll not know, the Grand Jury decided it wasn't worth looking into more.

Truth is, his death may not have been caused by the 'choke hold' but by some underlying cause.

[5stringJeff]

Trigg and Jeff, you both seem to forget that this is New York City we're talking about. It's not a place where free markets are allowed to exist...

Point made. Lord knows there's a bucketload of free-market reforms that would make NYC a much better place.

[LongTermGuy]

And how many people in America resist arrest and are subdued without the police killing them?



`True...not many...unless they want to be ignorant...and wanna fight...have attitude......or are over-weight with hidden serious conditions....and are to stupid to take it to court...

[LongTermGuy]

The police are right to be concerned about young males and crime. Yes, they are right to be concerned about young, black males, the crime rates support that.

However, for these very reasons the police need to be aware of the likelihood of suspicion falling upon the innocent.

Problem is with both these newsworthy cases, there are differences between the two, that are now being juxtaposed.

Wilson was attacked. Grand Jury confirmed that.

Garner was a minor lawbreaker, selling blackmarket cigs. Blame NY laws for making that so profitable. In any case, while he'd an extensive legal record, none was violent. All were for 'entrepreneurship' of a not legal manner. He shouldn't be dead from that.

However, is he dead because of policeman action-which seem to me to have been excessive? We'll not know, the Grand Jury decided it wasn't worth looking into more.

Truth is, his death may not have been caused by the 'choke hold' but by some underlying cause.


`He is dead because he was stupid and didn't use his brain....fat and out of shape and indoctrinated attitude didn't help him either....AGAIN...he was being `arrested`.....he should of complied...

[Kathianne]

`He is dead because he was stupid and didn't use his brain....fat and out of shape and indoctrinated attitude didn't help him either....AGAIN...he was being `arrested`.....he should of complied...

Actually, refusing to comply with police is not a capitol offense. He died, at the hands or rather arms of a police officer. His crime was selling black market cigarettes. If race did play a role? However, my guess is that it was a cop trying to bring down an unwilling suspect, gone wrong.

If the cop was correct, the hold was taught in the police academy, either the academy is training officers in dangerous holds, or this suspect had an underlying medical problem.

There is still the question if the hold should have been applied in this case; when it seems that conversation could have brought it to a conclusion.

[LongTermGuy]

Actually, refusing to comply with police is not a capitol offense. He died, at the hands or rather arms of a police officer. His crime was selling black market cigarettes. If race did play a role? However, my guess is that it was a cop trying to bring down an unwilling suspect, gone wrong.

If the cop was correct, the hold was taught in the police academy, either the academy is training officers in dangerous holds, or this suspect had an underlying medical problem.

There is still the question if the hold should have been applied in this case; when it seems that conversation could have brought it to a conclusion.


`The officers intent was not to kill the Thug...again Thug killed himself...cops didn't know the (i wanna fight instead) thug had a medical problem.....

`Should they have just let the thug go and do as he pleases? Because the new Liberal way is not to offend and disrespect the new black crime wave that all Americans see and hear about daily?`

[Kathianne]

`The officers intent was not to kill the Thug...again Thug killed himself...cops didn't know the (i wanna fight instead) thug had a medical problem.....

`Should they have just let the thug go and do as he pleases? Because the new Liberal way is not to offend and disrespect the new black crime wave that all Americans see and hear about daily?`

Actually, it may way have been that the hold wasn't appropriate for what was ensuing. Again, reason an indictment would have been right.

He wasn't a thug, rather a losing, illegal entrepreneur. Not holding him blameless, just saying the death penalty didn't apply. Thus, the difference between this and Ferguson.

Really, there is little to be gained in claims that the law/police are color blind. They are not. Perhaps they should try to rise to that standard. Truth is, stats say that blacks, Hispanics have much higher level of crime than whites.

Not saying that's not without problems, but let's assume that the local cop doesn't get those distinctions.

[red states rule]

Actually, refusing to comply with police is not a capitol offense. He died, at the hands or rather arms of a police officer. His crime was selling black market cigarettes. If race did play a role? However, my guess is that it was a cop trying to bring down an unwilling suspect, gone wrong.

If the cop was correct, the hold was taught in the police academy, either the academy is training officers in dangerous holds, or this suspect had an underlying medical problem.

There is still the question if the hold should have been applied in this case; when it seems that conversation could have brought it to a conclusion.

The encounter with the Police was, perhaps, one factor in his death Kat. From what I read his weight and heart disease were also factors that caused a possible heart attack

Plus he was well known to the Police with over 30 arrests. Based on what I saw, the Police did over react but he did not obey lawful orders from the Police. I suspect if I disobey a lawful order from a Police Officer (white or black) I would be kissing the pavement as well

[glockmail]

Point made. Lord knows there's a bucketload of free-market reforms that would make NYC a much better place.Won't happen- too many liberals live there and they got the money and power. Better to let them have it all, maybe more liberals will move there so there will be less where I live.

[fj1200]

Actually, it may way have been that the hold wasn't appropriate for what was ensuing. Again, reason an indictment would have been right.

An indictment for doing his job poorly? Not sure I quite buy into that. Nevertheless, the civil suit's acomin'.

[jimnyc]

And how many people in America resist arrest and are subdued without the police killing them?

I think the mans obesity and asthma contributed to him losing breath and dying. Quite a lot of folks are subdued in the exact same manner across the nation, only those folks aren't always obese with asthma. I think this is what contributed to things, otherwise I believe he simply gets arrested and this is non-news.

As for the officer. Everyone gets mad over a shooting, and say "why didn't they just shoot him in the leg", when of course that goes against all training. Next comes "why didn't they just use a taser". That is soon followed with "whatever happened to an old fashioned baton". This officer took the least of all harmful methods, to simply subdue the person refusing to cooperate. Refusal to obey the law falls solely on the criminal, and this guy was hardly an upstanding citizen on his first arrest - he was angry because he was breaking the law again and has had so many arrests already.

Do I think this guy deserved to die? Absolutely not. Do I think a headlock was the correct route to take? Better than the other options, but I also agree that it "possibly" could have been talked down. Those are decisions the police make on the fly and I'm in no position to second guess them. I think in "my" line of thinking - if this guy wasn't obese and asthmatic, bringing him down and cuffing him for failure to cooperate takes moments and it's all over. If his response would have been good enough in that scenario - it shouldn't change because the guy had an underlying issue that no one could have known about.

Also, don't forget this guy was a career criminal. I'm sure the cop was on alert, as some of his priors were for assault, and currently out on bail on 3 charges at this moment. At 400lbs, and refusing to cooperate, I don't think cops should let him dictate how the situation is handled.

[jimnyc]

Garner was a minor lawbreaker, selling blackmarket cigs. Blame NY laws for making that so profitable. In any case, while he'd an extensive legal record, none was violent. All were for 'entrepreneurship' of a not legal manner. He shouldn't be dead from that.

I'm not saying he deserves to be dead....

But he WAS violent in the past, arrested for assault AND resisting arrest - which is exactly what happened here. So he was a repeat offender in the resisting department. Again, not worthy of killing him, but I don't think trying to subdue him via headlock was trying to kill him either.

[jimnyc]

He wasn't a thug,

I disagree. 30 arrests and some with violence and resisting... He fits the "thug" profile, on various definitions, and on some he doesn't. But he certainly wasn't a "law abiding citizen, or a non-violent person" - of course that's my opinion only.

[tailfins]

I'm not saying he deserves to be dead....

But he WAS violent in the past, arrested for assault AND resisting arrest - which is exactly what happened here. So he was a repeat offender in the resisting department. Again, not worthy of killing him, but I don't think trying to subdue him via headlock was trying to kill him either.

Had he been selling weed instead of loosies, he wouldn't have been subject to "targeted enforcement" as Limbaugh pointed out yesterday.

[jimnyc]

Had he been selling weed instead of loosies, he wouldn't have been subject to "targeted enforcement" as Limbaugh pointed out yesterday.

Either would have been unlawful. It's how he responded that changed things, not what they "targeted" him for.

[Kathianne]

An indictment for doing his job poorly? Not sure I quite buy into that. Nevertheless, the civil suit's acomin'.

Indictment doesn't mean conviction. Trials do bring out facts, that seems what is needed in this case.

[fj1200]

Indictment doesn't mean conviction. Trials do bring out facts, that seems what is needed in this case.

Of course, but if they didn't have the facts in a system highly favorable to the prosecution then it begs the question is it really needed? If he did his job poorly then the NYPD is going to pay when the civil suit is filed.

BTW, Boortz agrees with you.

[Drummond]

As I'm typing, Jesse Jackson is concluding a bog-standard (for him) whingeing interview with a BBC News presenter. Usual stuff, on the lines of the ever hard-done-by minorities, how rights must be fought for .... well, I'm sure you all know the stuff he comes out with.

So here we are, with Obama well into his second term and with Jackson sounding off as though a Government had been installed that cared not a jot about civil liberties. Led BY OBAMA, the first black(ish) President you've ever had, leading the Dems -- who are SUPPOSED to care about such things as a 'core value'.

I just had to post, in passing, about how the Left (and Obama) have proven themselves, WITHIN THEIR OWN TERMS, as 'waste-of-space' disingenuous pontificators.

Sorry -- I just enjoy it whenever the Left shoots itself in the foot. Which, under Obama, seems to be a central methodology at work ..

[5stringJeff]

I think the mans obesity and asthma contributed to him losing breath and dying. Quite a lot of folks are subdued in the exact same manner across the nation, only those folks aren't always obese with asthma. I think this is what contributed to things, otherwise I believe he simply gets arrested and this is non-news.

As for the officer. Everyone gets mad over a shooting, and say "why didn't they just shoot him in the leg", when of course that goes against all training. Next comes "why didn't they just use a taser". That is soon followed with "whatever happened to an old fashioned baton". This officer took the least of all harmful methods, to simply subdue the person refusing to cooperate. Refusal to obey the law falls solely on the criminal, and this guy was hardly an upstanding citizen on his first arrest - he was angry because he was breaking the law again and has had so many arrests already.

Do I think this guy deserved to die? Absolutely not. Do I think a headlock was the correct route to take? Better than the other options, but I also agree that it "possibly" could have been talked down. Those are decisions the police make on the fly and I'm in no position to second guess them. I think in "my" line of thinking - if this guy wasn't obese and asthmatic, bringing him down and cuffing him for failure to cooperate takes moments and it's all over. If his response would have been good enough in that scenario - it shouldn't change because the guy had an underlying issue that no one could have known about.

Also, don't forget this guy was a career criminal. I'm sure the cop was on alert, as some of his priors were for assault, and currently out on bail on 3 charges at this moment. At 400lbs, and refusing to cooperate, I don't think cops should let him dictate how the situation is handled.

Jim, I agree with pretty much all of your post, except that at some point, when the man is down on the ground saying "I can't breathe, I can't breathe," there's got to be some sort of easing of force. They're on the ground for several seconds - plenty of time for the policeman to react and adjust his tactics. I'm not saying Garner didn't deserve to be arrested (though I think tax laws brought about the situation in the first place), but there had to have been a better way.

[LongTermGuy]

***
It is common for Thugs (criminals) to say....your hurting my arm....my leg...my head...my shoulder...."i cant breath"...etc...etc...etc...when held down and in a confrontation with police......*And its most "always"....ALWAYS!!!.... a confrontation when dealing with criminals who `never want to start off doing the right thing` in the first place by just surrendering and working things out in court....The left leaning media and anarchist are doing one heck of a Job screwing America with its twist and lies.....at this moment the communist / free loading racists are in Macy's in NEW YORK holding the protests.....Time to get serious with this lawlessness .....January caint get here quick enough....to atleast start with the clean-up....

[jimnyc]

Jim, I agree with pretty much all of your post, except that at some point, when the man is down on the ground saying "I can't breathe, I can't breathe," there's got to be some sort of easing of force. They're on the ground for several seconds - plenty of time for the policeman to react and adjust his tactics. I'm not saying Garner didn't deserve to be arrested (though I think tax laws brought about the situation in the first place), but there had to have been a better way.

Well stated, Jeff. The very second he was down they should have slapped cuffs on and released the hold. Or being that it was his neck, maybe releasing instantly and taking over the arms at that point? There was no need for this man to die over such an issue, even if he was a career criminal. I think he was wrong for resisting and making matters worse than they needed to be, and the police for not taking a lesser route. Problem with that is, they aren't required to do so, hence lack of charges.

Personally? Stick a taser up against his chest and give him a warning. Many folks back off when they see that sucker, or the red light. But imagine he was tased and had a heart attack? I wonder if things would "look" differently to others then? I dunno.

[LongTermGuy]

Well stated, Jeff. The very second he was down they should have slapped cuffs on and released the hold. Or being that it was his neck, maybe releasing instantly and taking over the arms at that point? There was no need for this man to die over such an issue, even if he was a career criminal. I think he was wrong for resisting and making matters worse than they needed to be, and the police for not taking a lesser route. Problem with that is, they aren't required to do so, hence lack of charges.

Personally? Stick a taser up against his chest and give him a warning. Many folks back off when they see that sucker, or the red light. But imagine he was tased and had a heart attack? I wonder if things would "look" differently to others then? I dunno.


`All these stips and regulations now against the Police...coulda...woulda...shoulda......but not the thugs...maybe its time for the police in general to go on strike nation-wide....or just have black police officers to control and govern their own...see how nice it is in Africa where the black folks are in control of their own country.....:coffee:

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c12558620141205120100.jpg

[aboutime]

Jim, I agree with pretty much all of your post, except that at some point, when the man is down on the ground saying "I can't breathe, I can't breathe," there's got to be some sort of easing of force. They're on the ground for several seconds - plenty of time for the policeman to react and adjust his tactics. I'm not saying Garner didn't deserve to be arrested (though I think tax laws brought about the situation in the first place), but there had to have been a better way.


5stringJeff. I agree with you as well. However. The new trick most police officers always hear, and recognize in general is 'I CAN'T BREATH'. But...If the subject is able to SAY "I CAN'T BREATH", as long as they are able to speak. They are BREATHING. So, it's a fine line to be sure.

In this case. I must disagree with the cop's use of the choke hold for so long after the man was down. And, for selling cigarettes???? Really?

Then again. The police have their hands tied by rules, laws, and unspoken techniques handed down by WINKING politicians who...If in the same position, would use the techniques to protect themselves.
DOUBLE STANDARDS are destroying us all.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv120514dAPC20141205124516.jpg

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgq8fQCX-U


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L5AL79V0ew

[revelarts]

I think the mans obesity and asthma contributed to him losing breath and dying. Quite a lot of folks are subdued in the exact same manner across the nation, only those folks aren't always obese with asthma. I think this is what contributed to things, otherwise I believe he simply gets arrested and this is non-news.
....

The thing is it is an NYC code forbidden hold.
if the cops and so many here want the guy to follow the rules to the letter shouldn't we hold the cops accountable to their own rules as well. Or do they get special permission to flout the rules at will? but the citizens have to obey every command of a cop or they are subject to death on the spot?

since the cops broke the rules and as you say many others 'are subdued in the exact same manner' aren't the cops who do this to be consider thugs by some definition.
they break the rules and they hurt people in the process.

There was incident of this locally where the man die of a heart attack during arrest. He told them he had a heart condition as they sat on his back. That man died as well. The offense was not not extreme in that case either and the man was above 30 years old if i remember correctly.
Didn't make nat'l news. as most cases like this don't.

[revelarts]

One thing i don't understand from Many of you guys, you insist on finding fault with the man's past.
and you continually bring it up AS IF it justifies the death.

Obviously from the video the man was not attacking the cops and didn't have weapons, he was communicating in a frustrated but non- threatening way (unless of course you think just being a big black man who's frustrated is threatening).
He never threw a punch. From what i saw he only moved his hands away in frustration.

If a person has a record and is back on the streets obviously he's paid his debt to the system. So he's free, that's the way the system works. the RULES everyone seem stuck on until they apply to cops and the CIA.
But do we need to bring up every police brutality/death victim's past bad deeds when a Cop are the ones who've obviously made the mistake or committed a criminal act?

Why not try to find out if the COPS have a record of beating or bad reports. Have they ever beat their wives, a lot of cops do (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/). And It's MUCH more to point in this case than the ALLEGED cigarette salesman's record

but No. it's like 'Well OH he's a career criminal sooo...'
so? So what folks?
He was standing on the street today not harming a soul, and the cops killed him.

To make this point in a light way.
Have you married guys ever done or said stupid or wrong things that got you trouble? probably many over the years. Ok so If your neighbor "accidentally" hits you with a baseball bat, do you want your wife and her friends saying stuff like
"well, you do remember when he did that thing to me, and the other, a baseball bat might be extreme but he's done a lot of crap, and if he had listen to me in 1st place it would have never have happened... let me list the things he did and said to me... and his whole FAMILY is that way too did you here..."

What the H3ll does you past or your family have to do with the baseball bat incident? zip.

[jimnyc]

The thing is it is an NYC code forbidden hold.
if the cops and so many here want the guy to follow the rules to the letter shouldn't we hold the cops accountable to their own rules as well. Or do they get special permission to flout the rules at will? but the citizens have to obey every command of a cop or they are subject to death on the spot?

since the cops broke the rules and as you say many others 'are subdued in the exact same manner' aren't the cops who do this to be consider thugs by some definition.
they break the rules and they hurt people in the process.

There was incident of this locally where the man die of a heart attack during arrest. He told them he had a heart condition as they sat on his back. That man died as well. The offense was not not extreme in that case either and the man was above 30 years old if i remember correctly.
Didn't make nat'l news. as most cases like this don't.

Then they should handle this internally. If it's not illegal, then you can't charge with a crime. If the State of NY felt that a police officer subduing a suspect in such a manner was so egregious that it should be illegal, it would be on the books. There's a HUGE difference between this being against departmental regulations and "NYC Code" as you write it. In no way, shape or form was this in any manner an illegal act. The accountability comes from the police, and if they feel this went against their regulations, of course they would have a good case against the unions in firing the officer or suspending him.

And this was a headlock, not a choke hold. On a 400lb man resisting arrest. Who has been charged with the same crime in the past. Sometimes this is how you have to take the big man down. He shouldn't have broken the law AND resisted. But I do believe they could have released the headlock once down.

[revelarts]

Then they should handle this internally. If it's not illegal, then you can't charge with a crime. If the State of NY felt that a police officer subduing a suspect in such a manner was so egregious that it should be illegal, it would be on the books. There's a HUGE difference between this being against departmental regulations and "NYC Code" as you write it. In no way, shape or form was this in any manner an illegal act. The accountability comes from the police, and if they feel this went against their regulations, of course they would have a good case against the unions in firing the officer or suspending him.

And this was a headlock, not a choke hold. On a 400lb man resisting arrest. Who has been charged with the same crime in the past. Sometimes this is how you have to take the big man down. He shouldn't have broken the law AND resisted. But I do believe they could have released the headlock once down.
It's part of the NYC police dept handbook patrolman's guide strictly prohibits the hold. on record for 20 years. Are police suppose to follow the rules or not Jim?

Plus If people die from negligence or from not following proscribed procedures on regular jobs you can be charged with manslaughter i believe.
And if someone dies you don't get to "handle it internally" sorry. it's a gov't PUBLIC post you don't get to hide your crap.

[jimnyc]

It's part of the NYC police dept handbook patrolman's guide strictly prohibits the hold. on record for 20 years. Are police suppose to follow the rules or not Jim?

Plus If people die from negligence and or not following proscribed proceeds on regular jobs you can be charged with manslaughter i believe.
And if someone dies you don't get to "handle it internally" sorry. it's a gov't PUBLIC post you don't get to hide your crap.

Follow rules - yes, but it's STILL not illegal is all I'm saying. And yes, as part of any such perceived negligence, they can file a CIVIL suit - but you can't magically charge someone with a crime when it wasn't a crime.

[revelarts]

Follow rules - yes, but it's STILL not illegal is all I'm saying. And yes, as part of any such perceived negligence, they can file a CIVIL suit - but you can't magically charge someone with a crime when it wasn't a crime.

is manslaughter a civil offense?

[jimnyc]

One thing i don't understand from Many of you guys, you insist on finding fault with the man's past.
and you continually bring it up AS IF it justifies the death.

Here's why I bring it up:

I think it goes towards showing what type of person he is, that he was a career criminal and this wasn't his first time breaking the law. His record shows that this wasn't his first rodeo in the resisting arrest department, and I'm sure the police took that into account. I don't think it justifies any death, and I don't see where anyone stated as much. I do think his history justifies the police being prepared, or going towards subduing him quickly, as he has a history.

[jimnyc]

is manslaughter a civil offense?

Manslaughter would mean he committed a crime, and he didn't commit any crime. They are free to file a civil lawsuit if they feel there were departmental issues, or that their actions were the direct cause of his death. But again, you can't charge someone with a crime they didn't commit. You pointed out what you are talking about was this choke hold or a headlock. Neither is illegal. If not illegal, I don't see how manslaughter charges could remotely stand up. There would need to be some sort of underlying criminal act for manslaughter charges.

[revelarts]

Manslaughter would mean he committed a crime, and he didn't commit any crime. They are free to file a civil lawsuit if they feel there were departmental issues, or that their actions were the direct cause of his death. But again, you can't charge someone with a crime they didn't commit. You pointed out what you are talking about was this choke hold or a headlock. Neither is illegal. If not illegal, I don't see how manslaughter charges could remotely stand up. There would need to be some sort of underlying criminal act for manslaughter charges.

it's not "illegal" to be drunk or goofing off on the job operating a crane or a fork lift but if a guy kills someone while doing it i believe he can be charged with manslaughter. For obvioulsy breaking the safety "rules" not the law.

[revelarts]

I looked it up.
from an New York Lawyer so it must be true....
http://www.nyccriminallawyer.com/violent-crimes/manslaughter-charge-in-new-york/

§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
This statute defines the involuntary manslaughter charge in a case where the defendant did not intend for the victim die, but acts in such a “reckless” and dangerous manner that the victim does die...

[jimnyc]

it's not "illegal" to be drunk or goofing off on the job operating a crane or a fork lift but if a guy kills someone while doing it i believe he can be charged with manslaughter. For obvioulsy breaking the safety "rules" not the law.

Yes, it is illegal to operate such machinery while drunk, as well as one would have their license revoked to use that machinery.

[jimnyc]

I looked it up.
from an New York Lawyer so it must be true....
http://www.nyccriminallawyer.com/violent-crimes/manslaughter-charge-in-new-york/

§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
This statute defines the involuntary manslaughter charge in a case where the defendant did not intend for the victim die, but acts in such a “reckless” and dangerous manner that the victim does die...

Good look proving the intent was to harm, or was SO reckless that he was responsible for the death. Maybe that's where the grand jury looked, and they decided against it with more facts than we have in front of us. I don't think a police officer trying to subdue a known criminal, resisting arrest, is acting in a manner as the statute describes. But that's me. I still say it was a normal headlock as well, and not a choke hold. A typical choke hold involves both arms in the choke, to lock the first one in place, almost guaranteeing you "choke out" your opponent.

[revelarts]

Good look proving the intent was to harm, or was SO reckless that he was responsible for the death. Maybe that's where the grand jury looked, and they decided against it with more facts than we have in front of us. I don't think a police officer trying to subdue a known criminal, resisting arrest, is acting in a manner as the statute describes. But that's me. I still say it was a normal headlock as well, and not a choke hold. A typical choke hold involves both arms in the choke, to lock the first one in place, almost guaranteeing you "choke out" your opponent.

the rules say no holds around the neck or anything that would inhibit breathing. whatever you might want to call it Jim. and they don't have to prove intent. just the fact that he broke the police rules IS reckless. not "normal" unless breaking the rules is considered normal and not "thugish".

but your right about driving drunk on fork lift, it is illegal.

[fj1200]

I looked it up.
from an New York Lawyer so it must be true....
http://www.nyccriminallawyer.com/violent-crimes/manslaughter-charge-in-new-york/

§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
This statute defines the involuntary manslaughter charge in a case where the defendant did not intend for the victim die, but acts in such a “reckless” and dangerous manner that the victim does die...

Do we know on what charge the GJ was deliberating?

[jimnyc]

Do we know on what charge the GJ was deliberating?

Don't quote me on this!! But I think when listening to a local AM station, they said that there were quite a few charges available for the GJ to take, but that they returned a no bill on all of them.

[fj1200]

Don't quote me on this!! But I think when listening to a local AM station, they said that there were quite a few charges available for the GJ to take, but that they returned a no bill on all of them.


Staten Island's top prosecutor did not ask grand jurors to consider a reckless endangerment charge in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, a source familiar with the case told NBC 4 New York.
District Attorney Daniel Donovan only asked grand jurors to consider manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges against NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo, the cop seen on widely-watched amateur video wrapping his arm around Garner's neck as the heavyset, asthmatic 43-year-old yelled, "I can't breathe!" nearly a dozen times during the July 17 confrontation, the source said.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Daniel-Pantaleo-Daniel-Donovan-Grand-Jury-Charges-NYPD-284869641.html


S 120.20 Reckless endangerment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree whenhe recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk ofserious physical injury to another person.S 120.25 Reckless endangerment in the first degree. A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when,under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, herecklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to </pre>another person.

I don't think that would make any difference either. Maybe second degree.

[jimnyc]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Daniel-Pantaleo-Daniel-Donovan-Grand-Jury-Charges-NYPD-284869641.html



I don't think that would make any difference either. Maybe second degree.

I wonder if there are laws or loopholes that prevent a certain amount of charges? For example, we'll often see someone brought up in court on say murder in the 2nd degree or the lesser included charge of manslaughter. But why wouldn't a prosecutor put up murder one, murder in 2nd, a few manslaughter charges and assault. And what if charges were different and he got reckless and they no billed homicide?

I'll have to peek around and see how many and what charges are allowed in such a situation. But I don't think they can toss 99 charges at the case and hope one sticks. Sounds like they tried for the 2 more serious charges and they failed.