No indictment in Eric Garner chokehold death

[Kamakazie Sith]

In my opinion a 15-17 second choke hold does not pose a substantial risk of death. Neither does holding someone down when they are still able to talk though that is assuming you aren't putting undue pressure on the chest, back, or upper body.

Why should the time length of the choke hold matter when it's banned by policy, and the autopsy says it's part of the cause of death?

Because intent matters in criminal cases. Also, the articles that directly quote the text of the autopsy don't mention the choke hold.

Example;

I point a gun at a person and then shoot them. That's murder because I knowingly pointed a gun at a person and pulled the trigger.

If I point a gun at a ballistic trajectory and fire and the round strikes and kills someone that I can't see or have anyway of knowing was there then the mental state would be reckless. Even though I didn't know that there was a person at risk a reasonable person would know that firing a gun in such a manner could kill someone.

When the NYPD banned chokeholds by officers in 1993, it was because they were implicated in a number of deaths and were already called out in a 1985 policy restricting their use as "potentially lethal". NYPD policy acknowledges that chokeholds pose a substantial risk of death. The officer in question should have been aware of that policy, and he then disregarded it. That is textbook recklessness.

I understand that, but it ignores my point. NYPD policy is not law. Any defense attorney could make the case that a 15-17 second choke hold is not substantially likely to result in death. That is what you would need...the end result is substantially likely. A 15-17 choke hold is not substantially likely to cause death. My evidence? The number and duration of choke holds applied during professional events. If they were substantially likely to cause death then there would likely be more than four recorded incidents and those don't even count because they involved brain injury due to blunt force trauma.

[Gaidin]

In my opinion a 15-17 second choke hold does not pose a substantial risk of death. Neither does holding someone down when they are still able to talk though that is assuming you aren't putting undue pressure on the chest, back, or upper body.

Why should the time length of the choke hold matter when it's banned by policy, and the autopsy says it's part of the cause of death?

Because intent matters in criminal cases. Also, the articles that directly quote the text of the autopsy don't mention the choke hold.

Example;

I point a gun at a person and then shoot them. That's murder because I knowingly pointed a gun at a person and pulled the trigger.

If I point a gun at a ballistic trajectory and fire and the round strikes and kills someone that I can't see or have anyway of knowing was there then the mental state would be reckless. Even though I didn't know that there was a person at risk a reasonable person would know that firing a gun in such a manner could kill someone.

I'm not saying throw a charge at him that blatantly high. I was never expecting something so high as murder or something that requires intent. What the fuck ever happened to something relevant to his negligence because he did something against the fucking policy of his own damn department that directly led to the death of the man? Unless you really think neck compressions in the autopsy report had nothing to do with causing an asthmatic those kinds of issues. I see you in other threads harping on what is and isn't policy in other threads. Why not here?

[Terralthra]

When the NYPD banned chokeholds by officers in 1993, it was because they were implicated in a number of deaths and were already called out in a 1985 policy restricting their use as "potentially lethal". NYPD policy acknowledges that chokeholds pose a substantial risk of death. The officer in question should have been aware of that policy, and he then disregarded it. That is textbook recklessness.

I understand that, but it ignores my point. NYPD policy is not law. Any defense attorney could make the case that a 15-17 second choke hold is not substantially likely to result in death. That is what you would need...the end result is substantially likely. A 15-17 choke hold is not substantially likely to cause death. My evidence? The number and duration of choke holds applied during professional events. If they were substantially likely to cause death then there would likely be more than four recorded incidents and those don't even count because they involved brain injury due to blunt force trauma.

The law does not codify everything that is a substantial risk. The NYPD banned all chokeholds because there was a nationwide string of deaths due to police using chokeholds. It was judged by the NYPD (and many other police departments) that chokeholds posed a substantial enough risk of lethal danger to bar police from using them. My evidence is police department policy of both the police department in question and many other departments across the country, and your evidence is "but MMA!" Four recorded incidents? Are you daft? NYPD Commissioner Kelly cited, in 1993, 16 deaths in the LAPD over a period of five years traceable to chokeholds, plus a "rising number of deaths" in police custody in NYC.

More-the-fuck-over, that's probably exactly the sort of evidence that should have been presented to a jury, in public, with both a prosecutor and a defense attorney to make a case. The mere fact that it is arguable proves there should have been a fucking indictment for exactly this charge. You want to play defense attorney and call an MMA expert as a witness about how totally safe chokeholds are, then go ahead and do it...in a court of law, in public, where a prosecutor who actively wants to convict is going to question your evidence.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm not saying throw a charge at him that blatantly high. I was never expecting something so high as murder or something that requires intent. What the fuck ever happened to something relevant to his negligence because he did something against the fucking policy of his own damn department that directly led to the death of the man? Unless you really think neck compressions in the autopsy report had nothing to do with causing an asthmatic those kinds of issues. I see you in other threads harping on what is and isn't policy in other threads. Why not here?

Neck compression wasn't in the quoted portion of the autopsy either. Also, what do you mean I'm not harping on policy here? I think manslaughter isn't an appropriate charge.

You appear to be confused. My point isn't don't charge him. My point is charge him correctly. What's really amusing about this whole thing is if you charge him with involuntary manslaughter, which requires a reckless mental state, that will be a class D felony. I want to charge him with aggravated assault or under New York code it is felony assault. Even if we charge him with the second degree felony assault it is still a class D felony just like involuntary manslaughter. I want him charged with first degree felony assault which is a much more serious class B felony.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The law does not codify everything that is a substantial risk. The NYPD banned all chokeholds because there was a nationwide string of deaths due to police using chokeholds. It was judged by the NYPD (and many other police departments) that chokeholds posed a substantial enough risk of lethal danger to bar police from using them. My evidence is police department policy of both the police department in question and many other departments across the country, and your evidence is "but MMA!" Four recorded incidents? Are you daft? NYPD Commissioner Kelly cited, in 1993, 16 deaths in the LAPD over a period of five years traceable to chokeholds, plus a "rising number of deaths" in police custody in NYC.

Again, I'm aware of this. NYPD policy does not translate to law. If an officer violates policy then they can be fired and charged with a crime but just because NYPD views something as a potential risk. Though the actual policy doesn't actually say what you think it says.

Policy


Members of the New York City Police Department will NOT use chokeholds. A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.

More-the-fuck-over, that's probably exactly the sort of evidence that should have been presented to a jury, in public, with both a prosecutor and a defense attorney to make a case. The mere fact that it is arguable proves there should have been a fucking indictment for exactly this charge. You want to play defense attorney and call an MMA expert as a witness about how totally safe chokeholds are, then go ahead and do it...in a court of law, in public, where a prosecutor who actively wants to convict is going to question your evidence.

Agreed.

[Gaidin]

I'm not saying throw a charge at him that blatantly high. I was never expecting something so high as murder or something that requires intent. What the fuck ever happened to something relevant to his negligence because he did something against the fucking policy of his own damn department that directly led to the death of the man? Unless you really think neck compressions in the autopsy report had nothing to do with causing an asthmatic those kinds of issues. I see you in other threads harping on what is and isn't policy in other threads. Why not here?

Neck compression wasn't in the quoted portion of the autopsy either.

Video basically going over the event with a forensic scientist and physician. Compression of the neck and chest when I heard it came before issue of the report. And they apparently stayed in the report(see video), and don't cause permanent damage as such as there's plenty of articles harping on no permanent damage from the chokehold yay(/deadpan).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or
to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists.


In my opinion a 15-17 second choke hold does not pose a substantial risk of death. Neither does holding someone down when they are still able to talk though that is assuming you aren't putting undue pressure on the chest, back, or upper body.

His body positioning will do the work. Put someone into a chokehold, then force them to the ground and hold them there. Their body weight, plus the distributed pressure on said body will compress the chest. If they are already asthmatic and hypertensive, holding them like that can send them into a death spiral.

It is also pretty easy to talk, even when in respiratory distress. Just because you cannot take in enough breath (which will be made worse by a panic state), does not mean you cannot expel what you bring in.

As a general rule, if someone says they cannot breath, they cannot breath. You see this sort of thing all the time in botched "re-birthing therapy" and exorcisms.

[Lonestar]

Well, a 12lb trigger pull will do that to most.

They made it a 12lb trigger pull because they didn't want to bother with teaching basic TD. The NYPD seems to have a rather lackadaisical attitude towards training across the board.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, a 12lb trigger pull will do that to most.

They made it a 12lb trigger pull because they didn't want to bother with teaching basic TD. The NYPD seems to have a rather lackadaisical attitude towards training across the board.

No shit. That's pretty bad.

[Kamakazie Sith]

His body positioning will do the work. Put someone into a chokehold, then force them to the ground and hold them there. Their body weight, plus the distributed pressure on said body will compress the chest. If they are already asthmatic and hypertensive, holding them like that can send them into a death spiral.

It is also pretty easy to talk, even when in respiratory distress. Just because you cannot take in enough breath (which will be made worse by a panic state), does not mean you cannot expel what you bring in.

As a general rule, if someone says they cannot breath, they cannot breath. You see this sort of thing all the time in botched "re-birthing therapy" and exorcisms.

I am not arguing that the choke hold did not contribute to the death. I trust the medical examiner and I agree with the findings.

[General Brock]

Police are legally able to resort to force, but its understood to be sometimes necessary and there is usually enough public trust that it won't be misused. Trying to put the cuffs on is a reasonable call and what most people would expect. Its when good calls don't happen that people start getting really upset.

I'll remind you the offense in question for Eric Garner was selling untaxed cigarettes, something that's at most a fine. At most a fine, the fact Mr Garner did not bow his head and simply take the ticket but instead got upset and talked back. This justified them throwing him to the ground choking him out, cuffing him and watching him die. For a crime that rates a fine at best. Why again did they need to do anything but get Mr Garners name, write him a ticket and issue a summons for the fine? At the time the police (Before the video came out) said that Eric assumed "a fighting stance" and was "going to get violent" so they had to pile on him, put him in handcuffs and watch him die.

Then the video comes out, the police are five feet away, Eric does not move more than one step from his spot and puts his hands in the air even as he's tell the cops not to touch him. In this case saying don't touch me is the equivalent of actually resisting so the office steps up, chokes him and puts him on the ground while the other cops pile on.

Let me put it this way General Brock. Lets say I'm being impolite to a cop who's writing me a ticket for jaywalking. At what point can he change that fine able offense to an arrestable one? What about hunting with an expired license or without a valid tag? Do these crimes ever result in being wrestled to the ground and arrested if you accuse the cops of profiling you based on your skin color?

Speaking of cigarettes however, I've not been able to find but in the grand jury testimony did they ever find any cigarettes on Mr Garner as the incident in question started with cops walking up on Mr Garner and questioning him about this (It's something he had been fined for before).

That untaxed cigarettes don't merit arrest flew over my head, as did the validity of arresting Mr. Garner in the first place. It was simply assumed the cops had a valid reason to arrest to begin with, and I appear to have been wrong.

My impression was that a political order came down to crack down on people selling loosies, and Garner was known for doing this. On the day he was killed, he claimed to have none on him - and, police were there about a fight Garner helped break up, not loosies. The arrest has been linked to something called 'broken windows policing' wherein misdemeanors are treated like more serious crimes. However, its not clear what Garner's misdemeanor was now; loosies or the fight. As far as I can tell, no cigarettes were ever found, none appear in the video, and no-one in the media has even asked about that. Garner obviously wasn't the one fighting, so the arrest seems to have been unjustified in the first place.

Cops resorting too quickly to the cuffs has come under question. But some cops like it that way;

Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: “You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different,” he told Newsmax. “He wouldn’t be dead today.

“Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don’t have the ability to say, ‘Well, this is a minor arrest, so we’re just going to ignore you.’”

Despite, or because of, the extensive media coverage focused on the chokehold death, the specific reason for Garner's arrest before the chokehold is not clear. While race is likely a factor, there have been cases of unarmed whites being killed by police with no consequences, since the victims were poor whites. No-one's even asking those important questions, what was Garner being arrested for, what was the validity of the charge, and perhaps, do cops have too much discretion to arrest?

Those real questions appear to be being avoided by media sensationalism. Pressing an illegal arrest is assault and battery under the U.S. Constitution, but most Americans don't know their rights and some would be afraid of the consequences of resisting. Being out on bail for previous non-violent offenses doesn't remove Garner's right to resist an unlawful arrest.

The only justice Eric Garner's family may see is through a civil suit.

[Flagg]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

[Beowulf]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

You talking about protesters in New York?

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

Because mass public open carry by black people will result in arrests and police involved shootings.

[Simon_Jester]

That untaxed cigarettes don't merit arrest flew over my head, as did the validity of arresting Mr. Garner in the first place. It was simply assumed the cops had a valid reason to arrest to begin with, and I appear to have been wrong.

My impression was that a political order came down to crack down on people selling loosies, and Garner was known for doing this. On the day he was killed, he claimed to have none on him - and, police were there about a fight Garner helped break up, not loosies. The arrest has been linked to something called 'broken windows policing' wherein misdemeanors are treated like more serious crimes. However, its not clear what Garner's misdemeanor was now; loosies or the fight. As far as I can tell, no cigarettes were ever found, none appear in the video, and no-one in the media has even asked about that. Garner obviously wasn't the one fighting, so the arrest seems to have been unjustified in the first place.

Broken windows policing may be a good way to fight a crime epidemic (i.e. New York in the 1970s) in that it ensures that casually, routinely committing petty crimes. A given mugger may still not get caught, but if said mugger is in the habit of jumping subway turnstiles (hardly implausible) and there's an outstanding warrant for their arrest because of the time they skipped bail... they can be caught that way. One can make a case that broken windows policing actually helped in some American cities in the late 20th century. It may or may not be airtight, but it's at least a case.

The really big problem with broken windows policing is that if it works, you expect the crime rate to go down. If there's pressure on the police to keep the arrest rate up in order to be "tough on crime," though... You get escalation. The line between "tough on crime" and "police randomly harassing people" moves. Certain neighborhoods are subject to seemingly random, capricious arrests where the police trawl widely in hopes of finding a few of the many, many people who've fallen through the cracks in an overloaded judiciary. Or who, having already been convicted of a serious crime after a previous trawl, have no realistic prospects except to live on the fringes of society committing more such crimes. And anyone the police know (or 'know') is probably carrying contraband becomes an easy target to run up their number of arrests.

So at some point, the situation devolves from "police are cracking down on petty crime in an attempt to deter the average citizen from being a petty criminal, and to create a sense of public order" into

"Police are harassing the poor, especially the black poor, endlessly, and it shows, and the blacks know it perfectly well, and they get upset, and when they express that anger, even in a relatively restrained manner, the police get violent and sometimes kill them over no damn thing at all... because others are not expressing their anger in such a restrained fashion."

Despite, or because of, the extensive media coverage focused on the chokehold death, the specific reason for Garner's arrest before the chokehold is not clear. While race is likely a factor, there have been cases of unarmed whites being killed by police with no consequences, since the victims were poor whites. No-one's even asking those important questions, what was Garner being arrested for, what was the validity of the charge, and perhaps, do cops have too much discretion to arrest?

Those real questions appear to be being avoided by media sensationalism. Pressing an illegal arrest is assault and battery under the U.S. Constitution, but most Americans don't know their rights and some would be afraid of the consequences of resisting. Being out on bail for previous non-violent offenses doesn't remove Garner's right to resist an unlawful arrest.

There's a difference, I suspect, between an illegal arrest and a merely mistaken arrest. One is the police arresting you when, say, they do not have grounds to suspect you are committing or have committed a crime. The other is the police arresting you when they are wrong.

I do not presume to say which case applies to Garner, but it's an issue. A lot of people assume "I'm not doing X" is grounds not to be arrested for doing X; it's not quite that simple when 'probable cause' and 'reasonable suspicion' start cropping up.

[TimothyC]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

Because neither the People's Republic of New York nor the Democratic Potentate of New York has any legal open carry legislation at all. Also, good luck getting a carry permit in NYC if you're not an ex-LEO, A celebrity, or security.

Also, there are no state or local peaceable passage laws - you're stuck using the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act as an affirmative defense if you've got a gun and are traveling through the city. I long for the day that the state and city are force to not violate the civil rights that they don't like.

As for in other places, it's because the idea that having guns in the hands of peaceful protestors helps keep the cops in check is something that a lot of the American left has a hard time wrapping their head around. Guns are evil after all!

Just to remind everyone, I think that minorities exercising their right to keep and bear arms is a good way for them to keep other rights - and that getting minorities involved with arms is a good way for everyone to keep their rights.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Just to remind everyone, I think that minorities exercising their right to keep and bear arms is a good way for them to keep other rights - and that getting minorities involved with arms is a good way for everyone to keep their rights.

Won't this instead provoke police to act even more aggressively against minorities? As it is, rampant racism in some parts is the main cause for a lot of the nonsense.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

Because mass public open carry by black people will result in arrests and police involved shootings.

Come on man. You don't know that.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

As for in other places, it's because the idea that having guns in the hands of peaceful protestors helps keep the cops in check is something that a lot of the American left has a hard time wrapping their head around. Guns are evil after all!

Just to remind everyone, I think that minorities exercising their right to keep and bear arms is a good way for them to keep other rights - and that getting minorities involved with arms is a good way for everyone to keep their rights.

I hear that worked out really well for the Black Panthers.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't really understand TimothyC's argument. I mean, the People's Republic of New York? Is he being sarcastic? Is he saying that freedom has a direct causal relationship with guns?

[Beowulf]

I don't really understand TimothyC's argument. I mean, the People's Republic of New York? Is he being sarcastic? Is he saying that freedom has a direct causal relationship with guns?

Yes, that was sarcasm. Remember, the origin of gun control in the US was to disarm minorities.

[cmdrjones]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

Because mass public open carry by black people will result in arrests and police involved shootings.

So?

[The Romulan Republic]

It's not really my place to say because as a white devil I am not a part of the African American community and can only witness their grief but share in their sheer outrage. But why don't they have protesters who are legally allowed to open carry walk in front of the mass of protesters with AR-15 slung over their shoulder?

Because mass public open carry by black people will result in arrests and police involved shootings.

So?

You're a sociopath. Got it.

Or maybe you want police officers to crack down more on black people because you're a racist. It would certainly fit with some of the other stuff I've seen you post.

[Simon_Jester]

As for in other places, it's because the idea that having guns in the hands of peaceful protestors helps keep the cops in check is something that a lot of the American left has a hard time wrapping their head around. Guns are evil after all!

Just to remind everyone, I think that minorities exercising their right to keep and bear arms is a good way for them to keep other rights - and that getting minorities involved with arms is a good way for everyone to keep their rights.

I hear that worked out really well for the Black Panthers.

The Black Panthers were crippled by revolutionary political fracturing and by the corrupt, self-serving nature of their leadership. This is not an inherent trait of "armed organizations seeking to protect minorities."

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think we need large numbers of angry protesters with guns confronting police with guns. That sounds like a recipe for a blood bath, which might discredit the protesters and be used to justify a crackdown. If that happened, our options would be to return to a more oppressive version of the status quo or fight a civil war. And anyone who wants that can go fuck themselves.