# Grand Jury Does Not Indict NYPD Officer Who Killed Garner With Illegal Choke Hold



## asher (Dec 3, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/n...en-island-chokehold-death-of-eric-garner.html







That choke hold is illegal via department policy.

*They have full video evidence of the entire thing.*

They have full video evidence and they *still* won't indict.

What good are body cameras going to do?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 3, 2014)

This one, from what I've seen, is buckets full of horse shit. I can understand that guy was supposedly doing something illegal and then refused to listen to officers, but that certainly doesn't warrant an illegal hold like they did. The fact that an illegal grab resulted in a mans death should have easily snagged an indictment, even if for a lesser charge. I'm not convinced it was a choke hold, though I can see how it might .... with someone of that guy's size's breathing which is ....ed up enough. They didn't need to do what they did and it resulted in a man's death. At the very least it's reckless endangerment.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 3, 2014)

Yeah, just read this online too and am really bothered. Just plain disgusting. Really does seem having a badge makes you untouchable even if the officer was clearly in the wrong. That sh*i*t really needs to change.


Rev.


----------



## Grief (Dec 3, 2014)

It's a shocker for sure.

Folk that are that obese are in fragile health. They might be big and heavy and difficult to deal with physically, but you have to be careful. This guy seemed to be taken down like they were tackling the hulk.

I recall recently hearing another case being described as someone being killed by the police not for the crime they were suspected of or the danger they presented, but solely precipitating their own demise by being disrespectful to the police. While disrespect should not happen and cannot be tolerated, it must not be responded to with disproportionate or lethal force in my view.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 3, 2014)

It gets worse. 
Despite his testimony, grand jury indicted Ramsey Orta, chokehold filmer, on gun charge: prosecutor (with video) | SILive.com


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Dec 3, 2014)

Wow. This is supremely disappointing.


----------



## crg123 (Dec 4, 2014)

This incident literally made me sick to my stomach. The guy pledged for his life. You can tell he wasn't dangerous just really frustrated with the harassment. I mean how many times does an obese man have to cry out "I can't breath" in a whimpering voice before you let go. What do you think he's going to run away if you let go? This isn't even a political thing. Its manslaughter and if you kill someone crying out to stop, you should pay the price. How can anyone be on that cops side.

Even if he was guilty of something (doesn't really seem like it from what I read), he has the right to be treated as a human being and treated as Innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that what we always used to say? What happened to that? Cop should have AT LEAST gotten excessive force charges.



> Eric Garner (September 15, 1970 &#8211; July 17, 2014) had been employed as a *horticulturist at the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation*. Garner was a 350-pound (160 kg), 43-year-old, 6'3" (1.91 m) tall, African American man. He has been described by his friends as a "neighborhood peacemaker" and as a generous, congenial person. He had six children.



Sounds like a hardened criminal to me? Right guys? smh I mean, he was a horticulturist, sounds violent to me (obvious sarcasm is obvious)


----------



## Randy (Dec 4, 2014)

Onesie cigarettes are serious business, apparently.


----------



## SD83 (Dec 4, 2014)

Grief said:


> While disrespect should not happen and cannot be tolerated, it must not be responded to with disproportionate or lethal force in my view.



I agree that a certain level of basic respect towards the police (and, maybe even more, towards firefighters, medics etc.) is necessary, but if that means you must not, under any circumstances, contradict an officer or refuse to follow his commands, something is going wrong. Honestly, after all I heard in recent years, if I ever come to the USA and get pulled over driving for no apparent reason, I would be scared as hell. 
This is just my personal opinion, no offense intended, but if armed and trained police officers feel threatened by random men walking with hands in their pockets, if they feel threatened by an unarmed, obese man (who literally can't run away), if people consider it plausible that other people leave their garage open on purpose to wait for intruders with a loaded gun, that sounds like an entirely paranoid society. 

As for this case, I still don't really understand how that system works. Who is this "Grand Jury", are there any investigations prior to their decision, evidence, witnesses... how do they come to their decision?


----------



## flint757 (Dec 4, 2014)

We have two trials, both that handle evidence and witness testimony. An indictment means there is enough plausibility and evidence that a crime was committed and that the defendant is the one who committed it. If an indictment happens it then goes to trial where another jury will determine whether you are guilty or innocent. From there it varies state-to-state. In some states a jury then assigns you a sentence and in others the jury is unaware of the sentence and the judge determines the length/severity after the trial.


----------



## tonetapped (Dec 4, 2014)

How Does a Grand Jury Work? - FindLaw

The idea of the Grand Jury is to present the evidence to a jury which will decide if there is a strong enough case to take to trial. Even if a Grand Jury decides not to indict, this webiste says that prosecutors can still make an attempt at trial.


----------



## vilk (Dec 4, 2014)

SD83 said:


> get pulled over driving for no apparent reason, I would be scared as hell.



The thing is, this is true for almost all Americans. I don't know anyone who feels even remotely comfortable around police officers aside from people who remember the 1970's (I heard cops were decent back then?) and people who live in crime ghettos.

I feel uncomfortable around police even when I'm not doing anything wrong, because I know that they can, and will, _and do_ make up shit to get people in trouble, and they basically always get away with it. Their job is to "protect and serve", but somehow along the way they were given instructions that don't really have much to do with either protecting or serving us...


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 4, 2014)

They're on a roll lately. 
Judge Drops Charges Against Cop In Aiyana Stanley-Jones Shooting | News One


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 4, 2014)

> Sounds like a hardened criminal to me? Right guys? smh I mean, he was a horticulturist, sounds violent to me (obvious sarcasm is obvious)


If I remember correctly, he had 30 arrests under his belt, and I'm lead to believe that at least one was for doing the same thing he was doing in this situation. With that said, how much of a petty criminal, or even if he were a murderer, it makes zero difference. He wasn't posing any threat to anyone at that point in time. If the cops needed to detain or arrest him, they didn't need to slam him to the ground even if they weren't using illegal moves. 

They went overboard, and it resulted in a man's death. What that man has done in the past means very little since it had nothing to do with the actions of that day.

edit: It's worth noting that I may have my numbers wrong. I read that 30 people were arrested during protests. I do know that the man was arrested in the past, and stand by the fact that it means nothing to this case. There was zero reason for the police to react the way they did.

edit edit: I'd also like to take back what I said about it not being a choke hold. It pretty obviously was.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 4, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> They're on a roll lately.
> Judge Drops Charges Against Cop In Aiyana Stanley-Jones Shooting | News One



That's nuts. Reading into it the family was pretty crazy, which seems to be the angle they played, but that child didn't deserve to pay the ultimate price for it. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it is a clear cut case of police misconduct and involuntary manslaughter making all other facts irrelevant (and almost 100% guilty). How the hell did he get away with that?


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 4, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> edit edit: I'd also like to take back what I said about it not being a choke hold. It pretty obviously was.



No, I believe you were right as I just read an article that also states he had a record of 30 prior arrests dating back to the 1980's. And yes, one of them was selling cigarettes or whatever it was he was currently doing.

Also read that for an indictment it would have to be proven that the officer knew his actions would lead to his death. Probably got off because of how the laws are written. Still total BS IMO.


Rev.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 4, 2014)

Then the laws definitely need to be rewritten. I get why they are written that way, but it leave a little too much wiggle room for people to get away with some pretty ....ed up shit.


----------



## Overtone (Dec 4, 2014)

I'm not apathetic towards the Michael Brown situation, but when this story first came to light I immediately thought that THIS is the real situation that calls for some serious outrage. They killed a man who made zero effort to physically harm any of the officers... his only crime was standing up form himself verbally (ok, he also sold some ciggies, but whatever)!


----------



## vilk (Dec 4, 2014)

^It's because Brown was still a teenager on his way to college and a successful life (maybe? who can say--he's dead); it makes it more tragic. This dude was the guy on the street selling cigarettes. No one likes that guy anyway. No one sees themselves or their children in him.

BUT. I totally agree with your point.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 4, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> No, I believe you were right as I just read an article that also states he had a record of 30 prior arrests dating back to the 1980's. And yes, one of them was selling cigarettes or whatever it was he was currently doing.
> 
> Also read that for an indictment it would have to be proven that the officer knew his actions would lead to his death. Probably got off because of how the laws are written. Still total BS IMO.
> 
> ...



It's not even so much the death, although that just compounds the problem. It's the fact that he used an illegal move at all. The choke hold is outlawed for a reason. The fact that it's a rule shows that he at least should have known it could cause harm, and therefore should have been brought up on some sort of charge. I don't think he murdered or even intended to hurt the guy, but the fact is that he acted recklessly and harm, and even more unfortunately death, came from it. 

It's the fact that he violated rules, hurt/killed someone, and didn't even get a slap on the wrists that's so ....ed up about this whole deal.

totally not arguing with you, as you already said you agreed. Just felt like clarifying why I thought something should have come from this.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 4, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> totally not arguing with you, as you already said you agreed. Just felt like clarifying why I thought something should have come from this.



I totally see what you're saying and you know already I agree, was just pointing out how it's viewed by current written law. The sad part of it is they always use the "Well the family can still initiate a civil suit for wrongful death" as an excuse to try and say, "Well they still have options to pursue". Thing is, if they do pursue and win they get a monetary reward which doesn't change any functions of the system, doesn't punish the officer involved since the city would be paying the bill, and overall is basically paid for by the tax payers since it's our money anyway funding these governmental services. And every time someone wins a suit, like let's say for something way way minor like an injured arm for example, they tend to win high amounts like a few hundred thousand and even up to millions in some cases. And we wonder why city departments are always going broke and needing more money. Now don't get me wrong, in this instance someone died so I definitely feel a large compensation is due to the widow. It still doesn't make up for the fact though that nothing will change as a result of the suit and the officer still receives no punishment for his actions.

But with all the furor over this incident perhaps some change will be enacted. We can only wait and see.


Rev.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 4, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> It gets worse.
> Despite his testimony, grand jury indicted Ramsey Orta, chokehold filmer, on gun charge: prosecutor (with video) | SILive.com



I'm not sure what the "worse" is. This is just the newest charge, right? I thought he had at least 26 arrests and two convictions prior to his taping the incident, and he has two criminal cases pending from before the taping, one incident on May 4 with robbery and other charges, and one assault incident on July 13, where he allegedly punched a man collecting bottles in the face resulting in lacerations and swelling.

Ramsey's concerned wife also says her arrest and pending charges for assaulting another woman were drummed up by the police.

I've known people who told me that the police were always trying to get them into trouble, and that was the explanation for their lengthy criminal records. I'm guess that the Timecop Program is causing Orta Ramsey all this trouble predating his recording the video. 

If not, maybe he's just guilty of a few things, but willing to take advantage of another situation to lay off the blame for his criminal actions. 

----

I've been curious.

What do you folks think of Garner telling the officer, "This stops here." How do you think any officer would interpret that from someone who was being detained? 

How do you think the grand jury would have taken it? Might they have assumed that the officer would be reasonable in hearing a threat in that statement? 

Could Garner's own words towards the officer have anything to do with the grand jury's decision not to indict the officer?


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 4, 2014)

I am a HUGE fan of law enforcement. They are the closest thing we have to crime fighting superheroes. So I am exceptionally disappointed in the officer that did this. Actually, I'm pissed off, not disappointed. And after the guy died they made no effort to resuscitate him. WTF?

There is so much wrong with the justice system in this country, I'm amazed it doesn't get more criticism (like how health care does). Have you guys heard of Annie Dookhan? She's the CSI that falsified the evidence in 34,000 cases. And she's apparently far from unique. And from the article I read, the conclusion is that the police department is more concerned with getting a conviction than getting a conviction _on the right guy._


----------



## Axayacatl (Dec 4, 2014)

Randy said:


> Onesie cigarettes are serious business, apparently.



Sucks to be the wrong color in America, doesn't it?

Defraud the state by selling a cigarette at a time --> die by the chokehold. 

Defraud the state by using 'sophisticated' financial instruments that collapse the world's largest economy --> trillion dollar bailout.


----------



## pushpull7 (Dec 4, 2014)

Axayacatl said:


> Sucks to be the wrong color in America, doesn't it?
> 
> Defraud the state by selling a cigarette at a time --> die by the chokehold.
> 
> Defraud the state by using 'sophisticated' financial instruments that collapse the world's largest economy --> trillion dollar bailout.



I hate to break you the bad news, but color has nothing to do with it. I'm white as snow and I've been harassed (violently) by the police on many occasions.


----------



## Randy (Dec 5, 2014)

pushpull7 said:


> I hate to break you the bad news, but color has nothing to do with it. I'm white as snow and I've been harassed (violently) by the police on many occasions.



Well, that depends.

You're right that police abuse isn't necessarily framed by race but the quote you were replying to invoked financial inequality (essentially blue collar vs white collar crime) and minorities are disproportionately more likely to be in poor financial situations which attract police harassement.

To your overall point though, yes, those of us not living in the golden palace are too often harassed by the police regardless of race.


----------



## fps (Dec 5, 2014)

The idea that there wasn't a case to answer is ludicrous, corrupt, appalling, disgusting, and another clear sign that a cultural shift in American police training and power structure is required.


----------



## GizmoGardens (Dec 5, 2014)

Peter King says Eric Garner would not have died from chokehold were he not 'so obese'

Has anyone seen this shit? 

I think an open dialogue between citizens and law enforcement would mean a lot more without ridiculousness like this coming out. Is this ....ing nutjob kidding? Let's shift the blame off the officer, who made a piss-poor decision to break policy (seems a lot of people keep saying the choke was illegal, which I think is inaccurate?) and onto the guy because he's a fat guy? I call bullshit of the highest order. .... that noise. 

I'll be the first to come out and say you take your life into your own hands when you resist arrest and get aggressive with law enforcement, and that seems to be somewhat common among these horrific events that have been going on. But if this guy was truly just hanging out minding his own business, they had no reason to try put him in cuffs to begin with. Rationalizing it by saying "well if he wasn't such a fat fvck, he wouldn't be dead" is probably the absolute last way I'd try to explain away what happened in the video.

EDIT: It seems it has been widely addressed that the guy was obese. I guess I didn't realize the extent that it was being used to justify the lack of indictment..


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

He had 30 prior arrests including assault.

The choke hold did not kill him, he was alive at the scene and died an hour later after the ambulance had picked him up. Weighing 350 lbs, he had a host of health problems.

If you get your news through the mainstream media, you do not get the whole story. The grand jury, including nine blacks, deliberated for months and decided not to indite.

Imagine being dragged to court, exonerated, and then crucified by public opinion because liberal news sites need to drum up traffic and revenue.

Participating in the outrage is an assault on the officer who was exonerated. Please consider that the Grand Jury had more information than what is filtered to you through the media.


----------



## Randy (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> He had 30 prior arrests including assault.
> 
> The choke hold did not kill him, he was alive at the scene and died an hour later after the ambulance had picked him up. Weighing 350 lbs, he had a host of health problems.
> 
> ...



tl;dr - "Who would you believe? Me or your lying eyes?"


----------



## canuck brian (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> He had 30 prior arrests including assault.



So?



> The choke hold did not kill him, he was alive at the scene and died an hour later after the ambulance had picked him up. Weighing 350 lbs, he had a host of health problems.



Actually it DID kill him and has been an illegal form of restraint for that police department for quite some time. Coroner Report:

"After the incident, city medical examiners concluded that Garner was killed by neck compression from the apparent chokehold, along with &#8220;the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police&#8221;. Contributing factors included bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease."

Unless the media portrayed a written document by the man who performed the autopsy, your statement is 100% bullshit. The primary factor was the restraint.




> Imagine being dragged to court, exonerated, and then crucified by public opinion because liberal news sites need to drum up traffic and revenue.
> 
> Participating in the outrage is an assault on the officer who was exonerated. Please consider that the Grand Jury had more information than what is filtered to you through the media.



Imagine being murdered by a cop who has you in an illegal maneuver who then ends up crushing parts of your chest neck. 

There is outrage because the cop a) used an illegal method of restraint b) ignored the pleas of someone in said restraint saying "i can't breathe" and c) the cops actions overwhelmingly contributed to the man's unlawful death. 

That's the EXACT definition of involuntary manslaughter in case you haven't figured it out. Doing something intentionally illegal that contributes to the death of another human being is a criminal offense....unless you're a cop.

So genius - with a video clearly showing the illegal actions that killed the guy and a coroner report backing up that statement, what do you seriously think the public doesn't know that was discussed?

This cop wasn't exonerated, he was given a get out of jail free card. Maybe they can release this smoking gun of evidence to exonerate the cop and quell protests across the United States. They won't because its a crock of shit.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 5, 2014)

In tort and criminal cases we have the "thin skull rule" that essentially states that "you take the victim as you find them." If someone is more vulnerable than normal to injury due to, say, a medical condition, and the injury you inflict upon them is therefore more serious than it would be on a "normal" person, you are still liable for the full extent of any injury you inflict.

Eggshell skull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a result, it doesn't matter that Garner may have been overweight or asthmatic and that the cop didn't intend to kill Garner, or that a normal person might have survived. The fact is that Garner was killed as a result of injuries inflicted by the policeman. 

King is full of shit.

Although, really, you didn't need me to tell you that.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

canuck brian said:


> Imagine being murdered by a cop who has you in an illegal maneuver who then ends up crushing parts of your chest neck.



I can't imagine this. I don't commit crimes. Even if I did, I wouldn't physically resist.

I guess I don't have much regard for criminals and believe that if someone commits a crime and assaults an officer he deserves what he gets. $350lbs is the size of an NFL linebacker.


----------



## vilk (Dec 5, 2014)

That guy didn't assault any of the officers. Did you see the video? He was literally standing there yelling at them and they just took him down.

The police aren't god. They're just ....ing people. You think bacon should be able to choke someone out for committing a non-violent crime?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I can't imagine this. I don't commit crimes. Even if I did, I wouldn't physically resist.
> 
> I guess I don't have much regard for criminals and believe that if someone commits a crime and assaults an officer he deserves what he gets. $350lbs is the size of an NFL linebacker.



What if you didn't commit a crime, but were arrested anyway? What if you just verbally said "You have the wrong person" and when they decided to restrain you they started to hurt you?

This happened to an old professor of mine who happens to be a badass civil rights litigator who absolutely knows her rights and who knows an illegal arrest when she sees it:

Human Rights Lawyer Arrested For Standing On NYC Sidewalk Waiting For Kids To Use Bathroom: Gothamist

Keep in mind that illegal arrests happen all the time. Thinking that it only happens to "criminals" is, unfortunately, naive. Further, even criminals have constitutional rights.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I can't imagine this. I don't commit crimes. Even if I did, I wouldn't physically resist.
> 
> I guess I don't have much regard for criminals and believe that if someone commits a crime and assaults an officer he deserves what he gets. $350lbs is the size of an NFL linebacker.


Dying is totally getting what you deserve if your _assault_ consists of telling the police officer you can't breathe.


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 5, 2014)

GizmoGardens said:


> Peter King says Eric Garner would not have died from chokehold were he not 'so obese'
> 
> Has anyone seen this shit?
> 
> ...



Me: "Hi, I just received the guitar I ordered from you guys, and it came with a broken headstock."

Store: "Well, if you weren't so FAT maybe this wouldn't have happened!"

Me:


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> What if you didn't commit a crime, but were arrested anyway? What if you just verbally said "You have the wrong person" and when they decided to restrain you they started to hurt you?
> 
> This happened to an old professor of mine who happens to be a badass civil rights litigator who absolutely knows her rights and who knows an illegal arrest when she sees it:
> 
> ...



I was "arrested" once for a minor travel violation (problem with ticket machine did not punch my card) and it was obvious to me that the officer was on a power trip and being very agressive. I had just got off the metro, it was 0* F and my hands were in my pockets because it was freezing. I am a typical professional and this (black) cop it seemed to me was acting in a racist way, an officer would not normally get agressive with someone over a mistaken $2 payment.

However, I knew the stakes and I did every damn thing he said. Saw him in court and it was obvious that he was a hateful and violent cop seeking some kind of vengence for a problem with the ticket machine. 

I knew if I didnt start dancing for him it would be alot worse.


----------



## vilk (Dec 5, 2014)

So, I think you're trying to say, "this is the way things are and it sucks but there's nothing we can do".

But it comes off like you're saying "Police are entitled to behave this way and you should know your role"


----------



## canuck brian (Dec 5, 2014)

vilk said:


> So, I think you're trying to say, "this is the way things are and it sucks but there's nothing we can do".
> 
> But it comes off like you're saying "Police are entitled to behave this way and you should know your role"



Don't fight back if a cop is trying to kill you. He might kill you.


----------



## canuck brian (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I guess I don't have much regard for criminals and believe that if someone commits a crime and assaults an officer he deserves what he gets. $350lbs is the size of an NFL linebacker.



Since you've already convicted the guy of committing a crime before bringing it before a jury or judge, i could have declared the cop who murdered him a criminal for committing assault (illegal chokehold) and endangering the mans life, walked over and shot him in the head, declaring that I had to do it to save the man's life so it was justifiable homicide. Alternatively, since he was getting choked out and feared for his life, he could have rammed his keys into the cop's eye sockets and killed him, claiming self defense.

He didn't assault the cops. If you think committing the crime of selling smokes and being a large person justifies being murdered, you are an idiot.

You've also completely ignored the fact that it was clinically proven that the illegal actions of the cop killed the man and decided "whatever, the guy is a piece of shit anyways so the cop was justified."

Don't procreate. Please.


----------



## tonetapped (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Please consider that the Grand Jury had more information than what is filtered to you through the media.



I think that the actions of this police officer are disgusting and should not be tolerated. 

That being said, there is a decent chance that there was information presented at the GJ hearing that swayed the jurors toward their decision. 

IF there wasn't, it's important to note that double jeopardy DOES NOT apply here and the officer can be tried again if new evidence is found.


----------



## Randy (Dec 5, 2014)

tonetapped said:


> That being said, there is a decent chance that there was information presented at the GJ hearing that swayed the jurors toward their decision.



As I said early with the "lying eyes" comment... we all saw what took place, before, during and after. I doubt there's much in the way of 'evidence' that would've effected the GJ's decision one way or another.

More than likely, their decision was based on directions they were given. For example, they may have been told the grounds for indictment lay solely on establishing whether or not the officer intended to or expected his actions would lead to the guy's death. Sprinkle in enough doubt with regard to how concrete you can establish somebody's intentions (read: intangible items) and it's pretty easy to let somebody go. 

In my opinion, it has everything to do with how interested the DA is in pursuing a case and how he presents the situation to the GJ. What's becoming clear between this and the Ferguson case is that there's some likelihood of bias among DAs to not prosecute police officers.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

Officers are given latitude in defending themselves and using physical force. Reports show that only a very small percentage of police involved shootings/death end with inditement. So what is happening recently is not out of the norm.

Look at this from another perspective. Do you want to enforce new rules that police dislike and make it more difficult to recruit and retain officers. I am sure that officers feel they are stuck between a rock and hard space. If a traffic stop escalates, do they hesitiate and risk their life because they know taking action will ruin their life later?

So the question is, would you rather have agressive police or dwindling police forces and rules that put police under more stress? Lets say you are mugged/raped walking in a "decent" part of town, but the cop who was supposed to be on that beat either wasn't hired or didn't respond. Thats the problem with "liberty", someone else (usually) pays. In this case I side with the police.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> However, I knew the stakes and I did every damn thing he said. Saw him in court and it was obvious that he was a hateful and violent cop seeking some kind of vengence for a problem with the ticket machine.
> 
> I knew if I didnt start dancing for him it would be alot worse.



So, if an officer stopped you on the street for no reason and told you to drop your pants and bend over for a cavity search, you'd do so? Even though it would be an illegal search and seizure, sexual assault, and possibly illegal arrest?

(Note that Pantaleo, the policeman who killed Garner, had illegally done this to two men earlier in his career. As a result, NYC had to pay a huge monetary settlement to those two men when they brought a sexual assault case against the City.)



GoldDragon said:


> Officers are given latitude in defending themselves and using physical force. Reports show that only a very small percentage of police involved shootings/death end with inditement. So what is happening recently is not out of the norm.



That doesn't make it right.



> Look at this from another perspective. Do you want to enforce new rules that police dislike and make it more difficult to recruit and retain officers. I am sure that officers feel they are stuck between a rock and hard space. If a traffic stop escalates, do they hesitiate and risk their life because they know taking action will ruin their life later?
> 
> So the question is, would you rather have agressive police or dwindling police forces and rules that put police under more stress? Lets say you are mugged/raped walking in a "decent" part of town, but the cop who was supposed to be on that beat either wasn't hired or didn't respond. Thats the problem with "liberty", someone else (usually) pays. In this case I side with the police.



So, you're okay with policemen driving around in tanks, wearing body armor, and holding assault rifles in everyday situations so they're prepared? The threat of crime for you is so great that you want a paramilitary organization that is above the law acting as judge, jury, and executioner with impunity?

I don't want "aggressive" police. I don't want thugs in blue. I want intelligent, capable, well-trained, conscientious police. There is no shortage of people who want to be on the force. I'd rather be more judicious in hiring procedures anyway.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 5, 2014)

"For example, they may have been told the grounds for indictment lay solely on establishing whether or not the officer intended to or expected his actions would lead to the guy's death."

This is still the part I don't get. It's not just about the guys death, but injury. They have to prove he knew it may have caused injury. The fact that it was a rule not to use that move, we can assume that he knew it could cause injury. The rule is there because it is dangerous and shouldn't be done. He broke that rule and someone got hurt/died. Why make it a rule if you don't punish people for breaking it, especially when the reason for the rule happened, and in this case that was a death.


----------



## tonetapped (Dec 5, 2014)

Randy said:


> As I said early with the "lying eyes" comment... we all saw what took place, before, during and after. I doubt there's much in the way of 'evidence' that would've effected the GJ's decision one way or another.
> 
> More than likely, their decision was based on directions they were given. For example, they may have been told the grounds for indictment lay solely on establishing whether or not the officer intended to or expected his actions would lead to the guy's death. Sprinkle in enough doubt with regard to how concrete you can establish somebody's intentions (read: intangible items) and it's pretty easy to let somebody go.
> 
> In my opinion, it has everything to do with how interested the DA is in pursuing a case and how he presents the situation to the GJ. What's becoming clear between this and the Ferguson case is that there's some likelihood of bias among DAs to not prosecute police officers.



I agree that this could very well be what's happening here. It just doesn't seem right to me that a GJ of 20 or so people can all watch that video and decide as they did. There's something we're not seeing here. Whether it be evidence (I understand unlikely) or pressure from DA or whatever, there has to be something else.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 5, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> "For example, they may have been told the grounds for indictment lay solely on establishing whether or not the officer intended to or expected his actions would lead to the guy's death."
> 
> This is still the part I don't get. It's not just about the guys death, but injury. They have to prove he knew it may have caused injury. The fact that it was a rule not to use that move, we can assume that he knew it could cause injury. The rule is there because it is dangerous and shouldn't be done. He broke that rule and someone got hurt/died. Why make it a rule if you don't punish people for breaking it, especially when the reason for the rule happened, and in this case that was a death.



Because, unfortunately, the rule against chokeholds is an "internal guideline" which might be punishable by the PD via discipline. Violating such guidelines is not, in and of itself, grounds for a criminal prosecution.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> So, you're okay with policemen driving around in tanks, wearing body armor, and holding assault rifles in everyday situations so they're prepared? The threat of crime for you is so great that you want a paramilitary organization that is above the law acting as judge, jury, and executioner with impunity?



Yes, I feel safer when I see a well organized police presence.

I don't know where you live, but there are many areas of DC that I will not go unless there is strong police presence. I wont go to concerts in some places because I deem it unsafe.

I am much less afraid of the police than I am the people who the police keep in line.

Its possible that police abuse their power and get too agressive, but your chances of being abused and killed by police are much lower than being killed in a random car accident. For non criminals.

I think people should be more up in arms about things like air bag recalls and texting and driving because those things kill many more people than bad cops.

Something which is a statistical drop in the bucket (non criminal being abused by police) is lower priority than cheap chinese auto parts that end up killing people. People are in a frenzy about this now because the media is telling them to be. They would rather that than focus on the failures of the Obama administration and his illegal activities in the face of a public that voted out the democrats a few weeks ago.


----------



## canuck brian (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Officers are given latitude in defending themselves and using physical force. Reports show that only a very small percentage of police involved shootings/death end with inditement. So what is happening recently is not out of the norm.



You're right. It's not the norm, but seeing as an overwhelming majority of these incidents of police brutality involve cops killing unarmed, not resisting people for literally no reason, it's eventually going to start pissing a lot of people off when the cops get let off the hook when they've clearly either tried to kill someone or used excessive force and severely wounded someone.

Here in Toronto we had a kid named Sammy Yatim get brutally murdered by police. There are multiple camera angles included multiple people recording. Sammy was standing on an empty streetcar and obviously hopped up on some sort of drugs as he had his junk out and waving a knife. He didn't move and one of the cops promptly unloaded at least 9 rounds into him, including 6 while he was already down and clearly not a threat. He followed that up by tasing him. Pretty sure the taser was used so he could say he did it first and resorted to his handgun afterwards. He's been indicted because there was absolutely no possible way it could be looked at any differently. I don't trust cops because I know way too many people that have been brutalized at their hands. A buddy of mine had the orbit of his eye cracked when a cop went after him after he stepped out of his workplace at the G20 summit here (wearing a suit no less) No charges. He was standing outside lighting a smoke about 10 feet from the door.



> Look at this from another perspective. Do you want to enforce new rules that police dislike and make it more difficult to recruit and retain officers. I am sure that officers feel they are stuck between a rock and hard space. If a traffic stop escalates, do they hesitate and risk their life because they know taking action will ruin their life later?



I'd like to see rules where cops are held accountable for their actions because they're not currently being held accountable. Your solution is to let cops continue to have the full authority to brutally murder people and get away with it if someone so much as says "I can't breathe" doesn't work. Cops are supposed to protect people, not make people live in fear of them. 

Heres a traffic stop that escalated quickly. Glad that cop thought the guy reaching for his license was going for a rocket launcher or machine gun.
http://youtu.be/LaaeXIg9kSk



> So the question is, would you rather have agressive police or dwindling police forces and rules that put police under more stress? Lets say you are mugged/raped walking in a "decent" part of town, but the cop who was supposed to be on that beat either wasn't hired or didn't respond. Thats the problem with "liberty", someone else (usually) pays. In this case I side with the police.



This could be one of the most ridiculous statements you've managed to put on screen. Would i rather be murdered or savagely beaten by cops or would i rather have a smaller police force that follows rules already in place and enforced properly instead of being ignored? We don't need NEW rules, we just need cops to follow the ones already in place that are supposed to govern their behavior. There are multiple studies and statistics showing that police forces wearing chest cameras report on average 80% less complaints over previous years regarding police brutality and abuse. I can't imagine why that is....it couldn't be that they're being held accountable for their actions at all times??? Nah.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

canuck brian said:


> Heres a traffic stop that escalated quickly. Glad that cop thought the guy reaching for his license was going for a rocket launcher or machine gun.
> http://youtu.be/LaaeXIg9kSk



I was watching a show with videos of police that were killed in the line of duty. In one segment it showed a routine traffic stop, where he had a little mexican dude on the side of the car checking his license and his two buddies exit the other side of the car, circle around, and knife him to death.

He probably felt safe because they were the size of 12 year olds, but he got killed.

I'm not going to take any power away from police.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I was watching a show with videos of police that were killed in the line of duty. In one segment it showed a routine traffic stop, where he had a little mexican dude on the side of the car checking his license and his two buddies exit the other side of the car, circle around, and knife him to death.
> 
> He probably felt safe because they were the size of 12 year olds, but he got killed.
> 
> I'm not going to take any power away from police.



I hear the police have plenty of power in Russia and China. Have you considered moving?


----------



## flint757 (Dec 5, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> I don't want "aggressive" police. I don't want thugs in blue. I want intelligent, capable, well-trained, conscientious police. There is no shortage of people who want to be on the force. I'd rather be more judicious in hiring procedures anyway.



In any other profession you would be held accountable too. As an engineer you can easily lose your license if say a bridge you built collapsed, or a walkway collapsed, or a device you built exploded due to structural failure, etc. There is a lengthy trial usually leading to multiple people losing their license and jobs. Then follows the civil suits which usually don't go in the engineers favor. Knowing all that based on GoldDragons logic NOBODY would ever be an engineer as the risks are too high, but obviously that isn't the case nor is it an issue. 



TemjinStrife said:


> Because, unfortunately, the rule against chokeholds is an "internal guideline" which might be punishable by the PD via discipline. Violating such guidelines is not, in and of itself, grounds for a criminal prosecution.



That's why that didn't lead to a direct charge, but it does show wrongdoing (it likely wasn't present in such a way). My guess is the DA didn't push all that hard on the case. It seems they behave more like defense attorney's rather than prosecutors when it's an officer.

Maybe there should be a little bit more leeway than your average person, but they shouldn't be so above the law they are practically invincible.


----------



## vilk (Dec 5, 2014)

I don't see why the chokehold matters at all. If he'd have killed the guy using some other mode of combat not explicitly prohibited by the NYPD then it's just OK?


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

What is interesting is that 20-25 years ago, rockers and metalheads tended to be conservative in response to hippies.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 5, 2014)

vilk said:


> I don't see why the chokehold matters at all. If he'd have killed the guy using some other mode of combat not explicitly prohibited by the NYPD then it's just OK?



In my opinion, no because his actions didn't call for violence. On the other hand, the choke hold matters because it was an obvious broken rule which should have made it all the easier to show he knew it was dangerous. Regardless if the rule was set by police or if it's technically illegal or not doesn't matter. It was a rule put in place because it was established undue harm could come from it. The cop decided to disregard that, and the worst case scenario happened. The whole point is that he obviously knew harm could come from it, and harm DID come from it. 

So morally it doesn't make a difference if it was the choke hold or something else, but the "illegal" choke hold shows blatant knowledge that he might cause harm.


----------



## Randy (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> What is interesting is that 20-25 years ago, rockers and metalheads tended to be conservative in response to hippies.



I think they still are.

Alex Jones/Prison Planet and Ron Paul type libertarianism are both fairly popular with younger metalheads these days.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 5, 2014)

vilk said:


> I don't see why the chokehold matters at all. If he'd have killed the guy using some other mode of combat not explicitly prohibited by the NYPD then it's just OK?



Whether the choke hold was forbidden by the department is not the key thing here IMO.

If you kill someone with the premeditated intent to kill them, it is murder. If you intend to kill someone, but it is a spur of the moment thing without premeditation, it is voluntary manslaughter. If you kill someone accidentally, without intent to kill or premeditation, but due to your negligence or in the commission of a crime, it is involuntary manslaughter.

Using a choke hold (especially one banned by the police department you work for) against someone is at the least negligence IMO, and should result in involuntary manslaughter charges. If there was intent to kill, then voluntary manslaughter would be appropriate.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

Randy said:


> I think they still are.
> 
> Alex Jones/Prison Planet and Ron Paul type libertarianism are both fairly popular with younger metalheads these days.



I just can't imagine any John Petrucci fans saying "gimme my stuff!"


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Whether the choke hold was forbidden by the department is not the key thing here IMO.
> 
> If you kill someone with the premeditated intent to kill them, it is murder. If you intend to kill someone, but it is a spur of the moment thing without premeditation, it is voluntary manslaughter. If you kill someone accidentally, without intent to kill or premeditation, but due to your negligence or in the commission of a crime, it is involuntary manslaughter.
> 
> Using a choke hold (especially one banned by the police department you work for) against someone is at the least negligence IMO, and should result in involuntary manslaughter charges. If there was intent to kill, then voluntary manslaughter would be appropriate.



Lets make an analogy here.

You are standing behind a dam that has a leak. If you don't fix the leak, you will be overrun by water if you don't act fast. To stop the water from flooding out your village, you plug the hole with some sticks and mud. Unfortunately, that is not the "accepted practice for repairing the dam" set by the town elders. But you saved your life and everyone else in the village.

If the "victim" was belligerent and hostile and his actions threatened the life of the officer or other people present, the officer was justified in doing what he could to calm the situation. I'm pretty sure thats why the GJ did not indite, because the "victim" was acting in a hostile and life threatening manner. Of course the media does not tell you this.

People with little lives are looking for a pound of flesh when there is nothing to take.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 5, 2014)

Life-threatening? Hell no. He was just telling them to leave him alone. They initiated the takedown.


----------



## btbg (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> He had 30 prior arrests including assault.
> 
> *Ok. What did that have to do with this incident?*
> 
> ...



Reply in bold..


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Lets make an analogy here.
> 
> You are standing behind a dam that has a leak. If you don't fix the leak, you will be overrun by water if you don't act fast. To stop the water from flooding out your village, you plug the hole with some sticks and mud. Unfortunately, that is not the "accepted practice for repairing the dam" set by the town elders. But you saved your life and everyone else in the village.
> 
> ...



Are you high? At what point was he acting in a "violent and life threatening manner?" The guy wasn't throwing fists, he didn't have a weapon, he was just being a dick. Being a dick does not warrant being slammed to the ground, especially with an illegal choke hold.

Look, I'm typically one to side with the police and I frequently do. Even though I've personally been discriminated against by the police because of my color/race, I generally side with them. I even did so in the Wilson vs. Brown ordeal. The difference between that and this is that that case had evidence that to me largely indicated Brown was in fact the aggressor. (many will disagree with this, but let us please not bring that debate here.) This case has a video where you can flat out see what happens and the cop broke rules and it resulted in a death.

That is not okay to just let slide.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Lets make an analogy here.
> 
> You are standing behind a dam that has a leak. If you don't fix the leak, you will be overrun by water if you don't act fast. To stop the water from flooding out your village, you plug the hole with some sticks and mud. Unfortunately, that is not the "accepted practice for repairing the dam" set by the town elders. But you saved your life and everyone else in the village.
> 
> ...


Have you even watched the video? I'm curious what your sources are considering you seem awfully convinced you're right despite there not being any evidence to support your claims. But hey, it's only like the third thread where you've been acting this way so it might just be me right?

Also not saying the police are on a roll lagely but...
SFPD Disputes Allegations Officer Was "Choking" Giants Fan at AT&T Park | NBC Bay Area
Doubts cast on witness's account of black man killed by police in Walmart | US news | The Guardian
Autopsy: Police shot black man with sword in back


----------



## tedtan (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Lets make an analogy here.
> 
> You are standing behind a dam that has a leak. If you don't fix the leak, you will be overrun by water if you don't act fast. To stop the water from flooding out your village, you plug the hole with some sticks and mud. Unfortunately, that is not the "accepted practice for repairing the dam" set by the town elders. But you saved your life and everyone else in the village.
> 
> If the "victim" was belligerent and hostile and his actions threatened the life of the officer or other people present, the officer was justified in doing what he could to calm the situation. I'm pretty sure thats why the GJ did not indite, because the "victim" was acting in a hostile and life threatening manner. Of course the media does not tell you this.



How does this even begin to relate to the situation here? The guy wasn't a physical threat in any way. Even if he had started towards the cop, why not tase and cuff him instead of choking him until he died?

I understand why cops need to be cautious when dealing with people, but this was a gross overreaction on the part of the cop.




GoldDragon said:


> People with little lives are looking for a pound of flesh when there is nothing to take.



Or a scapegoat to blame to deflect the attention away from the cop's guilt.


----------



## Axayacatl (Dec 5, 2014)

pushpull7 said:


> I hate to break you the bad news, but color has nothing to do with it. I'm white as snow and I've been harassed (violently) by the police on many occasions.



That really really sucks about the physical harassment from the cops. Sorry to hear that. 

There is a wealth of empirical studies that suggest color has everything to do with it in areas ranging from employment to incarceration and judicial outcomes. 

The fact that Snow Whites also get harassed doesn't imply race has 'nothing to do with' though it would seem to suggest that there is more to the problem than race alone. 

Maybe I'm being pedantic but if you disagree with me then you are clearly Anti-Semantic


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 5, 2014)

Just watched the whole video as I'd only seen smaller news clips before. The thing that bothered me and struck me the most is the police didn't even talk to him. There was no formal warning of, "Sir, if you resist we'll have to use force to restrain you" or anything else of that nature, no effort to calm him, etc. It was simply them standing there with Garner ranting then the cop just goes for the choke hold. Living in NYC I've been witness to altercations with police with people doing the same thing, just ranting/venting and in those past instances the police have always clearly told the person that if they won't cooperate they'll have to use force and would say things like, "Is that what you want?". Or "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, your choice". In those instances witnessed I've never seen them need to resort to force as the subject always caves in. They didn't even give this man a chance.


Rev.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 5, 2014)

Grief said:


> It's a shocker for sure.
> 
> Folk that are that obese are in fragile health. They might be big and heavy and difficult to deal with physically, but you have to be careful. This guy seemed to be taken down like they were tackling the hulk.
> 
> I recall recently hearing another case being described as someone being killed by the police not for the crime they were suspected of or the danger they presented, but solely precipitating their own demise by being disrespectful to the police. While disrespect should not happen and cannot be tolerated, it must not be responded to with disproportionate or lethal force in my view.



Disrespect is also misdiagnosed. 

I've been stopped getting off of commuter buses bc I supposedly fit the description of someone who committed a crime in the city in which I arrived PRIOR to my arrival.

I was approached with, "HEY! STOP!"

I simply asked, "Why am I being stopped?"

To which he replied, "Oh you're giving me attitude? I'm gonna enjoy taking up your time."

Seriously... Why? If I'd even actually been the least bit disrespectful I feel like that could have gone quite poorly. The moment I asked why he stepped up toe to toe w me and squared up like he was looking to put his hands on me.

He looked back to see 2 other officers approaching then suddenly backs off and goes away.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Dec 5, 2014)

He should be jailed for murder, but ya know good luck getting a cop busted in the police state we live in.


----------



## SD83 (Dec 5, 2014)

No real contribuitions to the discussion, but:



GoldDragon said:


> 350lbs is the size of an NFL linebacker.



There is a huge difference between 350lbs pure power and 350lbs fat dude. You do not overpower a 350lbs linebacker alone. I've seen people that size resist four professional bouncers with ease and people that size being out of breath after walking five minutes at what I would call normal pace, most of the time you can tell the difference from a hundred metres and more.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 5, 2014)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> He should be jailed for murder, but ya know good luck getting a cop busted in the police state we live in.



They'd be insane to try for murder charges. At best they could get voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

As for a police state? We don't live in one. We just have a lot of corrupt and/or poorly trained cops. Big difference between that and a police state.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 5, 2014)

I was curious, and asked these questions a few pages ago, but no one ventured an opinion on it. 

Now I've been reading many people who said that Garner hadn't done anything assaultive towards the officer. If that's true, I want your opinion.

*What do you think of Garner telling the officer, "This stops here." How do you think any officer would interpret that from someone who was being detained? 

How do you think the grand jury would have taken it? Might they have assumed that the officer would be reasonable in hearing a threat in that statement? 

Could Garner's own words towards the officer have anything to do with the grand jury's decision not to indict the officer?*

----

I've asked multiple friends the following question:

*If someone who was known to have 30 arrests said to the officer, upon being stopped by the officer, "This stops here," what would you think if you were that officer?

Every one of them thought the guy would be on the verge of "stopping it" by violence. *

However, *a few of them who objected* to the *Ferguson* lack of indictment were *hesitant to answer*, because they thought it was a *trick question to undermine their support* of Michael *Brown*. I thought that was interesting, because they didn't want facts to undermine their rhetoric.  That led to some interesting discussions, which led to that admission of not wanting the interference of facts. 

*If you ask your friends the same question, no other details... how would *your* friends take its meaning in that officer's place?*


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 5, 2014)

"This stops here," is usually what people say in cartoons and comic books before they take someone out. 

I was also under the impression that assault is the threat of violence and nothing more. Meaning that his words *could* have been construed as assault. Coupled with 30 prior arrests, it's not really looking good for that dude.

Realistically, his death was the unfortunate outcome of what appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

I usually think this site is liberal garbage, but this article underscores the police's argument.

Police: Chokehold Victim Eric Garner Complicit In Own Death

"The video showed Garner telling officers to leave him alone and refusing to be handcuffed.

As the video sparked accusations of excessive force, the police unions mounted a counter-narrative: that Garner would still be alive if he had obeyed orders, that his poor health was the main cause of his death and that Pantaleo had used an authorized takedown move &#8212; more like a headlock than a chokehold &#8212; to subdue him.

Pantaleo's defenders have included Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who argued that the grand jury outcome would have been the same if Garner had been white, and that police were right to ignore his pleas that he couldn't breathe.

"The fact that he was able to say it meant he could breathe," said King, the son of a police officer.

"And if you've ever seen anyone locked up, anyone resisting arrest, they're always saying, 'You're breaking my arm, you're killing me, you're breaking my neck.' So if the cops had eased up or let him go at that stage, the whole struggle would have started in again."

Some are advising each other that the best way to preserve their careers is to stop making arrests like that of Garner's, in defiance of the NYPD's campaign of cracking down on minor "quality of life" offenses as a way to discourage serious crime.

"Everyone is just demonizing the police," said Maki Haberfeld, a professor of police studies at John Jay College of criminal justice. "But police follow orders and laws. Nobody talks about the responsibility of the politicians to explain to the community why quality-of-life enforcement is necessary." "



Is anyone an MMA expert and confirm that the submission he used was the illegal choke hold?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> "The fact that he was able to say it meant he could breathe," said King, the son of a police officer.
> 
> "And if you've ever seen anyone locked up, anyone resisting arrest, they're always saying, 'You're breaking my arm, you're killing me, you're breaking my neck.' So if the cops had eased up or let him go at that stage, the whole struggle would have started in again."



EVERY episode of Cops


----------



## UnderTheSign (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Is anyone an MMA expert and confirm that the submission he used was the illegal choke hold?


Are you an MMA expert and can you confirm it wasn't?

_"An autopsy by the citys medical examiner found that Mr. Garners death was a homicide resulting from the chokehold  a maneuver banned by the Police Department in 1993  and the compression of his chest by police officers._"


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 5, 2014)

The article and video shows that the hold did not start out as a choke hold, but a head lock because he had his arm in the grip. Because of his size and strength he was able to remove his arm from the hold.

Not so clear cut anymore. . .


----------



## canuck brian (Dec 5, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> I usually think this site is liberal garbage, but this article underscores the police's argument.
> 
> Police: Chokehold Victim Eric Garner Complicit In Own Death
> 
> ...



I dont' need to be an expert. I read the report of an expert who determines cause of death. He's called a coroner. That might be a big word for you.

I can attest to the fact that you might be able to squeeze out some air in an effort to say something like "stop" when someone is literally crushing the air out of you and I can tell you that from personal experience. This comes from several years of jiu jitsu and mma and systema. Did you miss the part where the compression on his chest also attributed to his death? You keep ignoring the coroner report, but then again, I've stopped hoping that you'd do something intelligent like read.

Cops: NO it wasn't a chokehold!

CORONER: Cops killed this guy with a chokehold, crushing his throat and chest.. Here is my evidence.

You keep talking about people doing their job but you're glossing over the guy who is the ONLY qualified person to say what physically happend to the guy and he's saying the cops straight up killed him. 

Let me add some statements that sound almost as mindbendingly stupid as everything you've written.

1) He only died because he was in bad health when i crushed his rib cage and throat.

2) He would have survived that my gunshot if he had moved 2 inches to the left.

3) If only he was wearing his hard hat, he would have survived that man caving in his skull with a hammer.

Again - please don't have children. Ever. They might ask a cop a question and completely submit to being murdered.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 5, 2014)




----------



## SD83 (Dec 5, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *If someone who was known to have 30 arrests said to the officer, upon being stopped by the officer, "This stops here," what would you think if you were that officer?
> 
> Every one of them thought the guy would be on the verge of "stopping it" by violence. *



It totally depends on where this happens and who tells them "This stops here" and how he tells it. And on how many "you" are. 
How many officers were around when that happened? 5? How scared can five armed, well trained officers be of a fat mid-40s man in shorts?
Have you watched the video? How can anybody view the "this stops here" part as a physical threat? Especially not with the "I'm minding my business, officer, please just leave me alone" stuff coming after that. And having both hands up telling the cops "please don't touch me, please" does not sound like resistance in my ears. If you're alone on the highway or in a dark corner or something, fine, but five officers, in broad daylight on the open road, and the suspect (mind you, from the video I have seen. There is a cut between the "minding my business" and the "please, don't touch me" part and I do not know what happened there) is not even remotly resisting, I see no way at all how this is justified.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 5, 2014)

Well what were the 30 other arrests for? Kicking the shit out of a group of cops?


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 5, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> What if you didn't commit a crime, but were arrested anyway? What if you just verbally said "You have the wrong person" and when they decided to restrain you they started to hurt you?
> 
> This happened to an old professor of mine who happens to be a badass civil rights litigator who absolutely knows her rights and who knows an illegal arrest when she sees it:
> 
> ...



Holy crap! Unfortunately, it doesn't look like much awareness was raised, because I didn't hear boo about this. That's just horrible. And the thing is, there are soooo many crimes being committed that the police COULD be busting, but instead they do stuff like this.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Dec 5, 2014)

I was actually arrested for something I DID do and had the charges dropped as a result of illegal procedure. Very odd how things play out.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 5, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> I was actually arrested for something I DID do and had the charges dropped as a result of illegal procedure. Very odd how things play out.



My roommates brother once upon a time got into a heap of shit with the police and because they didn't mirandize him they ended up not being able to use dick all of what he said. (and he said everything, as he was young at the time and didn't know better.) Not sure why I'm sharing that as it doesn't really relate to the thread topic.

Also it's very easy to say "there are real crimes happening and they do this" but the fact is is that there's not a cop around at every single crime committed. I've seen so many people run red lights, I've seen people throw rocks through windows, I've been robbed. I don't fault the police for not being omnipresent.

That human rights lawyer thing is fairly ....ed up though, but she went about it in the wrongest of ways. Instead of saying "I'm not in anybody's way. Why do I have to move? What's the problem?" she should have said "I have obtained permission for my children to use the bathroom in this restaurant, I am just waiting for them, I'll be on my way momentarily." Or something to that effect.

That said, it was obviously racial profiling, as it seems he probably started shit because of the "pro Palastinian" rally, and assumed that because she was brown she was there for that, possibly starting trouble. She still didn't do herself any favors by being confrontational, as what she said sounds exactly like every piece of shit you see on COPS. She is still wholly the victim, but it could have been handled better on her part.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 5, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> though, but she went about it in the wrongest of ways. Instead of saying "I'm not in anybody's way. Why do I have to move? What's the problem?" she should have said "I have obtained permission for my children to use the bathroom in this restaurant, I am just waiting for them, I'll be on my way momentarily." Or something to that effect



Ya know... I read that article and as f*u*cked up and wrong as it was that they arrested her I too thought: 1) Why did she respond _that_ way? Why not say, "Oh sorry officer but I'm waiting for my children that are using the restroom inside. I'll be out of the way as soon as they're out" or 2) Just go into the f'ing restaurant!!!!!.

I still agree it was totally wrong to be arrested for not moving. Just wondering why she reacted that way. In addition, that is *her* story. We don't really have any proof she wasn't acting in a much more d*i*ckish manner.

That said:




Rev.


----------



## Axayacatl (Dec 5, 2014)

Please teach your daughters that only little black sluts resist arrest. 

This happened in 2008. Enjoy the article 

GALVESTON, Texas (AP) - A Galveston couple has filed a federal lawsuit against three police officers who they say arrested and beat their 12-year-old daughter after mistaking her for a prostitute, according to newspaper report.
Wilfred and Emily Milburn, the parents of Dymond Larae Milburn, are asking for unspecified damages for physical injuries and emotional problems, which they say have included nightmares.
Sgt. Gilbert Gomez and Officers David Roark and Sean Stewart have filed documents saying their conduct was reasonable in light of the facts they had at the time, the Houston Chronicle reported Tuesday in its online story.
According to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Galveston, Dymond Larae Milburn went outside her home to flip a circuit breaker at about 7:45 p.m. on Aug. 22, 2006.
Responding to a call that three white prostitutes were soliciting in the neighborhood, the plainclothes officers jumped out of an unmarked van on Gomez's orders and one of them grabbed the girl, who is black, the lawsuit states.
The girl contends that the officers did not identify themselves as police and that the officer who grabbed her, later identified as Roark, told her, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me."
Her parents heard her cries for help and came outside to see the hysterical girl hanging on to a tree and screaming "Daddy! Daddy! Daddy!" while two officers hit her about the head, face and throat, the family alleges.
Two hours later, she was examined at the University of Texas Medical Branch emergency room and doctors found she had a sprained wrist, two black eyes, a bloody nose and blood in an ear, according to the lawsuit.
Weeks later, she was arrested during classes at Austin Middle School, where she was an honors student, the lawsuit states. She was tried a year later on a charge of resisting arrest, but the judge declared a mistrial on the first day, according to the lawsuit.
The reason for the mistrial was not immediately available Tuesday.
The case could go to trial in late 2009 or 2010.

Lawsuit: Girl, 12, not prostitute - Brownsville Herald: Valley


----------



## flint757 (Dec 5, 2014)

Wow. Even if she were a legit prostitute the treatment she received is sooo ....ing overboard. They make an unlawful arrest that borders on kidnapping and child abuse yet they have the audacity to bring up resisting arrest charges on a 12 year old girl. Apparently they got away with it as well. 

You know I'm fully aware that cops screw up sometimes and they shouldn't necessarily always get the book thrown at them for it since they are faced with sticky situations far more frequently than your average civilian. I'm also aware that there are certainly police out there who are honorable and try to do the right thing. What I can't fathom is why it seems like they never get in serious trouble even when it is beyond warranted. Even a slap on the wrist seems to only happen when it is a big .... up or the media gets a hold of it, otherwise it might as well have never happened with the way our legal system goes about it.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Dec 6, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> Just watched the whole video as I'd only seen smaller news clips before. The thing that bothered me and struck me the most is the police didn't even talk to him. There was no formal warning of, "Sir, if you resist we'll have to use force to restrain you" or anything else of that nature, no effort to calm him, etc. It was simply them standing there with Garner ranting then the cop just goes for the choke hold. Living in NYC I've been witness to altercations with police with people doing the same thing, just ranting/venting and in those past instances the police have always clearly told the person that if they won't cooperate they'll have to use force and would say things like, "Is that what you want?". Or "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, your choice". In those instances witnessed I've never seen them need to resort to force as the subject always caves in. They didn't even give this man a chance.
> 
> 
> Rev.



I agree.

The big guy seemed on the verge of panic IMO, and the officers maybe were a bit scared also.
What was needed was for the talking cop to tell the others to just go on and that he'd handle it from there, then he should have told the big guy that we'd let it go this time but that he just needs to move somewhere else for the moment to satisfy the chief.
I mean really , he was just selling single cigs , not like he was posing threat or harm to the public, except for lung cancer, but IMO if people don't know that ANY smoke is not exactly good for the lungs then the hell with them, unless of coarse he was caught selling to minors which would be a different situation altogether.

I'm a big fan of the Andy Griffith approach unless there's some serious public safety issue involved, like reckless driving (which IMO should be more of a police focus than it is).


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 6, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> That human rights lawyer thing is fairly ....ed up though, but she went about it in the wrongest of ways. Instead of saying "I'm not in anybody's way. Why do I have to move? What's the problem?" she should have said "I have obtained permission for my children to use the bathroom in this restaurant, I am just waiting for them, I'll be on my way momentarily." Or something to that effect.



The thing is, they had absolutely no right to do that to her. None. She did not have to justify what she was doing in any way to them or explain why she was waiting outside a restaurant. 

It was an illegal arrest, and citizens have the right to peacefully protest illegal arrests.


----------



## asher (Dec 6, 2014)

I think GoldDragon is missing his empathy bone.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Dec 6, 2014)

and a brain.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 6, 2014)

SD83 said:


> It totally depends on where this happens and who tells them "This stops here" and how he tells it. And on how many "you" are.
> How many officers were around when that happened? 5? How scared can five armed, well trained officers be of a fat mid-40s man in shorts?



Those are some excellent questions.

How scared can the jury assume the cops are of someone who was gaining the upper hand out of an armlock? 

Weirdly enough, you seem to be making the case that lethal response should definitely have been on the table. There's no other reason to think of the "armed" aspect of the situation, instead of focusing on the unarmed attempt at submission, unless you're saying, "Hey, those cops had guns, so they could have just justifiably blown this guy away at any time, so why bother with the wrestling into submission? Just kill the dude!" 

I can see your point. Why bother with the wrestling and the risk, what is there to fear, if you can just draw on the guy with a gun? Is there more of a risk of things escalating once the weapon is drawn? SD83 says that's still the best way to get the attention of a belligerent criminal, so draw away!

That was your point about them being armed, and so they shouldn't have to worry about non-lethally subduing the suspect, right? 

If not, *why did you use being armed as a reason for them not to do the wrestling thing? *


----------



## SD83 (Dec 6, 2014)

I honestly feel a bit offended by your post... 
As a LAST resort, IF your live is threatened or a potentially dangerous criminal is about to escape, then yes, I'm totally fine with the police shooting that person. However, I have not seen a point where Garner is physically attacking the cops or looks like he is reaching for a gun. And he certainly isn't going to get into his car and go kill more people elsewhere. So yes, I think a lethal response should definitly have been on the table, in theory, the police HAS to have this option to be able to do their job properly, but I don't see how it would be justified in this case.
Maybe it's just the fact that I have totally different image of the police due to living in a totally different place. But I simply don't understand the reason for jumping Garner in the first place. It's not like he was being wanted for manslaughter or selling meth.


----------



## fps (Dec 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Officers are given latitude in defending themselves and using physical force. Reports show that only a very small percentage of police involved shootings/death end with inditement. So what is happening recently is not out of the norm.



This instance of using the word "latitude" is apparently meant to cover a man using an chokehold he was not authorised to use to kill someone else? That's what this is. Let's not use latinate terms to try and distance ourselves from it.

People think there wasn't a case to answer here? If you do, just how naive are you about the overbearing power wielded by that police force to get this shut down and prevent someone who unnecessarily killed someone else facing the consequences of their actions.

I can't believe I'm even having to talk in terms of a conversation phrased around whether it was or was not "necessary" to kill this person, just shows how insane this is, and how messed up the framing of the debate around police in America is, what a counterproductive place it is in.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 6, 2014)

asher said:


> I think GoldDragon is missing his empathy bone.



There is a difference between empathy and the public display of empathy.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 6, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> The thing is, they had absolutely no right to do that to her. None. She did not have to justify what she was doing in any way to them or explain why she was waiting outside a restaurant.
> 
> It was an illegal arrest, and citizens have the right to peacefully protest illegal arrests.



It depends on what the rally or whatever it was was like. You might need to keep people moving for many reasons. Also, loitering is a thing. You can be told to move along if they suspect you're loitering.


----------



## Overtone (Dec 6, 2014)

The are some cops who would have answered her with "this protest is over, we need to keep people moving, move along!" or there is this cop who has a chip on their soldier and arrested her. There's a few that are like that... Confrontational, and looking to escalate things. When that plays out In a violent fashion against non violent civilians then those officers are themselves a danger to society.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 6, 2014)

SD83 said:


> As a LAST resort, IF your live is threatened or a potentially dangerous criminal is about to escape, then yes, I'm totally fine with the police shooting that person. However, I have not seen a point where Garner is physically attacking the cops or looks like he is reaching for a gun.



Did Garner, at any point, make a statement which a reasonable jury would interpret as assaultive, meaning that his statement contained the threat of physical violence?

How do you think the jury interpreted "This stops here," as Garner said to the officer? 

It's weird... I'm feeling like some really don't want to answer this question because it undermines what they want to be the case. Is this really such a hard possibility to confront?


----------



## tedtan (Dec 6, 2014)

^ One would certainly hope not, because words (taken out of context in this case) without any type of action to back them up do not excuse taking a life. Even if those words constitute a threat to the point of being a crime, they do not justify taking the person's life unless he acts on them to cause harm to someone else. And even then, there are often better options.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 6, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Did Garner, at any point, make a statement which a reasonable jury would interpret as assaultive, meaning that his statement contained the threat of physical violence?
> 
> How do you think the jury interpreted "This stops here," as Garner said to the officer?
> 
> It's weird... I'm feeling like some really don't want to answer this question because it undermines what they want to be the case. Is this really such a hard possibility to confront?



Given the video, the amount of officers on scene, the lack of weapon and the man's physical condition, it'd be silly for the grand jury to think much could happen, let alone enough to justify breaking rules to subdue someone.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 6, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Did Garner, at any point, make a statement which a reasonable jury would interpret as assaultive, meaning that his statement contained the threat of physical violence?
> 
> How do you think the jury interpreted "This stops here," as Garner said to the officer?
> 
> It's weird... I'm feeling like some really don't want to answer this question because it undermines what they want to be the case. Is this really such a hard possibility to confront?


More like you're trying really hard to justify this cops actions. I could buy it for any number of other shootings, but this one has hard evidence that they went overboard. More than that he violated a policy that was put in place because it was deemed too dangerous. Even if they did feel 'threatened' neither of these things would be different. The cop may not have had malicious intent, but it is a pretty obvious case of involuntary manslaughter IMO. The jury not doing anything doesn't really prove his innocence as it is quite common for them to consistently side with the police no matter the situation (pointing towards a bias, a much bigger problem IMO).


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 6, 2014)

flint757 said:


> More like you're trying really hard to justify this cops actions. I could buy it for any number of other shootings, but this one has hard evidence that they went overboard. More than that he violated a policy that was put in place because it was deemed too dangerous. Even if they did feel 'threatened' neither of these things would be different. The cop may not have had malicious intent, but it is a pretty obvious case of involuntary manslaughter IMO. The jury not doing anything doesn't really prove his innocence as it is quite common for them to consistently side with the police no matter the situation (pointing towards a bias, a much bigger problem IMO).



The hold he had on the man did not start as a choke hold. Originally he had his arm pinned but the man was able to remove it because he was big and strong. So saying it was a "choke hold" is disingenuous.

Also, I wonder if the medical examiner who did the autopsy could tell it was a "choke hold" that killed the man or perhaps he saw video and called what he saw a "choke hold", his interpretation.

Thankfully the GJ got this right and the majority of america is in agreement.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> The hold he had on the man did not start as a choke hold. Originally he had his arm pinned but the man was able to remove it because he was big and strong. So saying it was a "choke hold" is disingenuous.
> 
> Also, I wonder if the medical examiner who did the autopsy could tell it was a "choke hold" that killed the man or perhaps he saw video and called what he saw a "choke hold", his interpretation.
> 
> Thankfully the GJ got this right and the majority of america is in agreement.



OK, I've got to join in with the others, you really do have a serious mental gap that needs repairing. Firstly, it's irrelevant whether or not Garner's arm was in the vice. *He threw his hands up in surrender.* His arm came out of the hold due only to them taking him to the ground. And once on the ground the officer *continued* to apply the choke hold. He didn't stop and say, "Oh gee... his arm is no longer in the hold therefore let me stop or change the hold". Additionally, medical examiners do NOT analyze videos to form their opinions, suggesting so is just a lame attempt to support your poor position on this and also indicates you have no idea how medical examiners come to their final conclusion. It's a science with a result formed on hard evidence, not a personal bias based on watching videos of events. So please stfu with this non-chokehold BS.


Rev.


----------



## canuck brian (Dec 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Also, I wonder if the medical examiner who did the autopsy could tell it was a "choke hold" that killed the man or perhaps he saw video and called what he saw a "choke hold", his interpretation.



Also, I wonder when I read your comments, if you've actually written them out first in crayon beforehand.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 6, 2014)

canuck brian said:


> Also, I wonder when I read your comments, if you've actually written them out first in crayon beforehand.



It must be exciting to know you are right about something and that most everyone else is wrong.


----------



## GoldDragon (Dec 6, 2014)

Answer me this: Why is it always guys who had prior criminal records, were smoking pot, were on suspension from school, had just robbed a corner store, or were engaged in some other illegal activity that are being "abused" by police?

Will there ever be someone who was truly innocent who gets abused? When it happens to THAT person, then I have a problem with it.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 6, 2014)

How A Police Officer Shot A Sleeping 7-Year-Old To Death

Little girl was shot because of a police raid (no knock raid).

Police deal with crime so there most violent incidences are going to usually have to involve some sort of crime (no matter how petty). Selling cigarettes is equitable to speeding or running a stop sign or not filing for a permit. Do you think people should die if they were caught speeding too? Do you think someone should be killed because they were smoking a J. It isn't black and white, there are many shades of grey. Our legal system handles these shades of grey by adjusting the fines and sentences according to the crime. By your logic being guilty of anything justifies a cop murdering you which is not how our legal system operates. This is not Judge Dredd.

Innocent people get harassed by various law agencies all the time. There are absolutely some innocent people who have been convicted of a crime as well. Police should not be acting in such a grandiose way when the person they are harassing or hurting could be innocent and even if they aren't that isn't up for them to decide. They could be wrong and even if they are right death is reserved for a handful of states and very select types of situations. The death penalty is called special circumstance for a reason.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Answer me this: Why is it always guys who had prior criminal records, were smoking pot, were on suspension from school, had just robbed a corner store, or were engaged in some other illegal activity that are being "abused" by police?
> 
> Will there ever be someone who was truly innocent who gets abused? When it happens to THAT person, then I have a problem with it.



It's irrelevant if someone is a criminal. The dude could have murdered someone in the past, if he has no weapon and isn't being physically violent, then hurting them is overstepping bounds. For instance, the theater shooter guy wasn't bludgeoned, shot, or attacked and he was in fact shooting people. (It's pretty bad that I can't recall his name but I don't give much of a .... about him so whatever.)


----------



## canuck brian (Dec 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> Answer me this: Why is it always guys who had prior criminal records, were smoking pot, were on suspension from school, had just robbed a corner store, or were engaged in some other illegal activity that are being "abused" by police?
> 
> Will there ever be someone who was truly innocent who gets abused? When it happens to THAT person, then I have a problem with it.



Like this 12 year old that cops beat the shit out of when they were called into take care of a few white prostitutes in their area? Man, gotta watch out for those little 12 year old waif black girls, they're dangerous. 

Cops assault and kidnap 12 year old girl

I'd like to answer your question, but since you're equating someone being murdered to being "abused", I'm just going to go with the notion that you are completely incapable of rational thought and i'm borderline amazed you're able to string a sentence together.

edit: i stupidly looked thru your other posts and determined you're either a troll or just someone who needs to become a hermit so you don't pollute the rest of society.


----------



## The Shit Wolf (Dec 6, 2014)

I've read all the pages here and all I really have to say is I live in Las Vegas and I can't even count how many times I've seen drunk, belligerent morons that are as big or close to this guy causing problems on the strip, screaming at police, throwing shit (I saw a guy throw a bottle at an officer once) running, everything and I've never once seen them have to do anything like this to take someone down and usually it's two cops on bikes against these idiots not 5 like in the video.

I don't know maybe it's just because they're always on the strip and almost every person they have to deal with is drunk and belligerent so they're very experienced on how to handle them but the cops here generally seem more chill and professional?

And to explorer I usually agree with you but the "this stops here" comment could of just been an off the cuff statment made out of frustration with no violent intent? I mean obviously none of us can know what he was about to do if he wasn't taken down but it's hard for me to say that justifies what happened when I've seen officers here take people down more peacefully who we're yelling they were gonna knock the officers out, kill them ect.


----------



## asher (Dec 6, 2014)

GoldDragon said:


> There is a difference between empathy and the public display of empathy.



Which is why, when asked to entertain a hypothetical of being in a different situation, with the same assumptions, you ignored them and inserted yourself with 20/20 knowledge, completely screwing the point of the question.



As an aside, Explorer, I'm pretty disappointed with how hard your critical thinking skills fall over when cops are in question.


----------

