No indictment in Eric Garner chokehold death

[Dalton]

History repeats itself, except this time there was clear video evidence, a declaration of homicide from the coroner, and a clear NYPD ban on chokeholds since 1993, and the cop STILL wasn't charged. So what's the point of body cams?

NBC News

[Patroklos]

With 12 white and 9 otherwise (5 supposedly black) and only a minimum of twelve needed to indict in NY it would be interesting to see the breakdown of the jurors.

Also I didn't realize the Grand Jury can call witnesses on their own without the prosecutor.

[The Romulan Republic]

This actually bothers me more than the cop in Fergusson getting off. I haven't followed it that closely, but this seems like a fairly clear cut case of police abuse. I'm not going to assume that racism was behind this decision, but its obviously possible. Other alternatives include some legal technicality I'm not aware of and plain old authoritarianism. In any case, this will be fuel on the fire right now.

[TheHammer]

This actually bothers me more than the cop in Fergusson getting off. I haven't followed it that closely, but this seems like a fairly clear cut case of police abuse. I'm not going to assume that racism was behind this decision, but its obviously possible. Other alternatives include some legal technicality I'm not aware of and plain old authoritarianism. In any case, this will be fuel on the fire right now.

It bothers me less because he wasn't actually intending to kill the guy in this case. That being said, after watching the video I've got to wonder what the hell the logic is behind finding no probable cause to charge him with anything. Involuntary manslaughter?

[Terralthra]

I see the coroner's declaration being thrown around a lot. In the US, coroners only get to write one of a small set of things there: natural causes, accident, suicide, homicide, pending investigation, or could not be determined (death certificates can also have "in absentia" for situations in which a person missing for years is declared dead, but that's entirely irrelevant here).

From the relevant CDC document:

Natural—‘‘due solely or nearly totally to disease and/or the aging process.’’
Accident—‘‘there is little or no evidence that the injury or poisoning occurred with intent to harm or cause death. In essence, the fatal outcome was unintentional.’’
Suicide—‘‘results from an injury or poisoning as a result of an intentional, self-inflicted act committed to do self-harm or cause the death of one’s self.’’
Homicide—‘‘occurs when death results from...’’ an injury or poisoning or from ‘‘...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.’’
Could not be determined—‘‘used when the information pointing to one manner of death is no more compelling than one or more other competing manners of death when all available information is considered.’’
Pending investigation—used when determination of manner depends on further information.

In short, a declaration by the coroner that the death was caused by homicide only indicates that death was caused by the voluntary actions of another, usually intending to cause harm. It is not a legal declaration that the act itself was illegal or intended to kill. For example, you say to me, "I'm going to beat the shit out of you until you die from it, then rape your corpse," then start punching me in clear intent to harm. I punch you back in self-defense, but my punch happens to be in your throat, collapses your windpipe, and you subsequently die. The death certificate will read "homicide," regardless of the certainty that I will be able to successfully defend myself in court on self-defense grounds.

Not that the cop's actions here were at all justified or legal, since they clearly weren't. All I'm saying is that the coroner's classification of the death as homicide is irrelevant for criminal proceedings beyond showing that the death was (likely) caused by human action.

[Flagg]

Chestnuts roasting on an open fire...

[White Haven]

Yes, Terralthra. The coroner's declaration that the death was a homicide does not prove a crime. It does, however, provide a perfect set for the video evidence and the 'chokeholds aren't a legal thing, bitch,' elements to spike down into oblivion.

Or it should, at any rate. In a sane legal regime.

[Terralthra]

Yes, Terralthra. The coroner's declaration that the death was a homicide does not prove a crime. It does, however, provide a perfect set for the video evidence and the 'chokeholds aren't a legal thing, bitch,' elements to spike down into oblivion.

Or it should, at any rate. In a sane legal regime.

I agree. At the very least, it seems to provide excellent reasoning for manslaughter in the second degree, in NY.

Manslaughter is "recklessly causes the death of another person", and reckless is "aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists"; and "gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

He obviously caused the death. "Recklessly" requires awareness of a risk and disregarding that risk. NYPD bans chokeholds as a matter of policy because it poses a substantial risk of causing death. As an NYPD officer, he should be aware of NYPD policy and thus, the substantial risk. As he subsequently applied a chokehold, that covers disregarding the risk.

I don't know a jury in the country you couldn't convince based on just the evidence of the police report and the NYPD policy about chokeholds. A prosecutor should be able to simply get an officer to read the NYPD policy on chokeholds out loud in court, say that the officer in question was aware of the policy, then play the video tape, and the deliberation should take approximately zero fucking seconds.

[Borgholio]

Justice Department is investigating now.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStor ... h-27347252

[General Brock]

On Youtube Eric Garner's death is described as an 'execution' over cigarette tax evasion; most of the alternative media see it that way as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, even if same-old, same-old nothing done has the odds.

[Joun_Lord]

On Youtube Eric Garner's death is described as an 'execution' over cigarette tax evasion; most of the alternative media see it that way as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, even if same-old, same-old nothing done has the odds.

Even if they were after Garner for freaking murder it doesn't excuse killing him in taking him in when he presents no threat. I ain't saying they meant to kill him or that they even did (I've not read enough about this case to say one way or another, what little I've read about it either says he died because the NYPD hates black people or he died because he was a fatass who thought rasslin' with some pigs was a smart idea, I dunno) but nonetheless cops USUSALLY aren't allowed to just killed someone no matter what crime they commit, certainly not for selling death sticks.

Now if you are just complaining over the fact the media conveniently ignores WHY the cops were after Garner so as to paint a completely one sided picture or to perform character clean-up of the victim to rile tensions or whatever, yeah I agree with that but thats not exactly a problem limited to just this case.

[General Brock]

On Youtube Eric Garner's death is described as an 'execution' over cigarette tax evasion; most of the alternative media see it that way as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, even if same-old, same-old nothing done has the odds.

Even if they were after Garner for freaking murder it doesn't excuse killing him in taking him in when he presents no threat. I ain't saying they meant to kill him or that they even did (I've not read enough about this case to say one way or another, what little I've read about it either says he died because the NYPD hates black people or he died because he was a fatass who thought rasslin' with some pigs was a smart idea, I dunno) but nonetheless cops USUSALLY aren't allowed to just killed someone no matter what crime they commit, certainly not for selling death sticks.

Now if you are just complaining over the fact the media conveniently ignores WHY the cops were after Garner so as to paint a completely one sided picture or to perform character clean-up of the victim to rile tensions or whatever, yeah I agree with that but thats not exactly a problem limited to just this case.

Well, some would say the death was caused by an unnecessarily high tax that was profitable but difficult to enforce.

Apparently nearly half the cigarettes smoked in the state are 'illegal'. So you have a problem with a poorly disciplined police force asked to specially enforce poorly thought out laws, almost guaranteeing conflict and tragedy on top of the usual race and class divisions.

Having seen the video, its still not clear why violence was even considered. Police resorting to violence as a first choice seems to be becoming a problem, and there are no consequences for screwing up.

While that police officer may not have meant to kill, he and his buddies sure didn't seem too concerned about the possibility of causing any unintentional harm. Usually when a choke hold is applied, the victim is guided down, then care taken to ensure he's still breathing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's a fact of law that police can use force to effect an arrest. That force is limited to reasonableness. The choke hold was not reasonable. However, it isn't part of law, training, etc that police are not allowed to use violence to effect arrests. Police can use violence. This is allowed by law. That violence must be tailored to the crime and the specific facts of that specific incident. In this case, Eric Garner, was placed under arrest and resisted that arrest by pulling his arms away and preventing handcuffing.

This is what I would have done so you have some idea of the type of violence I would have used with just those facts. I would have hooked one handcuff onto the closest arm and then forced that arm closer to the opposite arm to make handcuffing possible. People can resist and pull away against the hands of other humans rather easily. Pulling away while a steel handcuff is around your wrist is much more difficult because it is very painful, though it isn't impossible either.

[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.

Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who was involved in Garner's death, seemed a little to eager to escalate to a hard physical confrontation. He's off the force now, and that's probably a good thing. Then, Garner's down and there wasn't a whole lot done to help him; police cuffed a dying man and really didn't seem too concerned that he was non-responsive after the use of a banned submission tactic. Nothing here flatters the police.

Incidents like this undermine the work of good police officers who can get the job done without undermining public confidence.

[Mr Bean]

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).

[Joun_Lord]

On Youtube Eric Garner's death is described as an 'execution' over cigarette tax evasion; most of the alternative media see it that way as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, even if same-old, same-old nothing done has the odds.

Even if they were after Garner for freaking murder it doesn't excuse killing him in taking him in when he presents no threat. I ain't saying they meant to kill him or that they even did (I've not read enough about this case to say one way or another, what little I've read about it either says he died because the NYPD hates black people or he died because he was a fatass who thought rasslin' with some pigs was a smart idea, I dunno) but nonetheless cops USUSALLY aren't allowed to just killed someone no matter what crime they commit, certainly not for selling death sticks.

Now if you are just complaining over the fact the media conveniently ignores WHY the cops were after Garner so as to paint a completely one sided picture or to perform character clean-up of the victim to rile tensions or whatever, yeah I agree with that but thats not exactly a problem limited to just this case.

Well, some would say the death was caused by an unnecessarily high tax that was profitable but difficult to enforce.

Apparently nearly half the cigarettes smoked in the state are 'illegal'. So you have a problem with a poorly disciplined police force asked to specially enforce poorly thought out laws, almost guaranteeing conflict and tragedy on top of the usual race and class divisions.

Having seen the video, its still not clear why violence was even considered. Police resorting to violence as a first choice seems to be becoming a problem, and there are no consequences for screwing up.

While that police officer may not have meant to kill, he and his buddies sure didn't seem too concerned about the possibility of causing any unintentional harm. Usually when a choke hold is applied, the victim is guided down, then care taken to ensure he's still breathing.

Garner was killed by over-zealous cops, not the fucktarded anti-smoking law (this coming from someone who hates smoking).

The cops could have been trying to arrest him for walking down the middle of the street, loitering, or being black in a non-black zone and the results could have been the same. They could have ticketed him or arrested him without choking a bitch over this selling of cigarettes at prices that aren't like they are made of gold, actually punished him for breaking the stupid law without killing him.

The anti-smoking law is just the reason for this confrontation, not the reason for Mr Garner's death. Thats all on Officer Wayne Brady Pantaleo and possibly Garner himself for his unhealthy life choices and not being a good little Citizen and respecting those Officer's authoritah.

[Flagg]

On Youtube Eric Garner's death is described as an 'execution' over cigarette tax evasion; most of the alternative media see it that way as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, even if same-old, same-old nothing done has the odds.

Even if they were after Garner for freaking murder it doesn't excuse killing him in taking him in when he presents no threat. I ain't saying they meant to kill him or that they even did (I've not read enough about this case to say one way or another, what little I've read about it either says he died because the NYPD hates black people or he died because he was a fatass who thought rasslin' with some pigs was a smart idea, I dunno) but nonetheless cops USUSALLY aren't allowed to just killed someone no matter what crime they commit, certainly not for selling death sticks.

Now if you are just complaining over the fact the media conveniently ignores WHY the cops were after Garner so as to paint a completely one sided picture or to perform character clean-up of the victim to rile tensions or whatever, yeah I agree with that but thats not exactly a problem limited to just this case.

Dude how about at least watching the motherfucking video which is easily accessed everywhere before you jump into a thread and talk like a 12 year old.

[Flagg]

Incidents like this undermine the work of good police officers who can get the job done without undermining public confidence.

Then maybe the "silent majority" of good cops should break down the blue wall of silence, and stop always giving 100% support to any cop that shoots a black person because it's n****** hunting season?

[Elheru Aran]

Meanwhile, South Carolina has indicted three cops in this year:

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/12/south ... black-men/

[Joun_Lord]

On Youtube Eric Garner's death is described as an 'execution' over cigarette tax evasion; most of the alternative media see it that way as well.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, even if same-old, same-old nothing done has the odds.

Even if they were after Garner for freaking murder it doesn't excuse killing him in taking him in when he presents no threat. I ain't saying they meant to kill him or that they even did (I've not read enough about this case to say one way or another, what little I've read about it either says he died because the NYPD hates black people or he died because he was a fatass who thought rasslin' with some pigs was a smart idea, I dunno) but nonetheless cops USUSALLY aren't allowed to just killed someone no matter what crime they commit, certainly not for selling death sticks.

Now if you are just complaining over the fact the media conveniently ignores WHY the cops were after Garner so as to paint a completely one sided picture or to perform character clean-up of the victim to rile tensions or whatever, yeah I agree with that but thats not exactly a problem limited to just this case.

Dude how about at least watching the motherfucking video which is easily accessed everywhere before you jump into a thread and talk like a 12 year old.

Bro I did watch the motherfucking video when this shite first started making the rounds and it didn't for certain show anything beyond the cops holding down Garner and him bitching he couldn't breath, which people tend to do anyway when people are piling on top of them. His cause of death I only know of now from recently reading a news story about the coroner report. But I didn't need to know or see such things with my knowing and seeing bits to know this being a execution, especially over some bullshit tax, is bullshit.

Also I'll have you know that I talk quite well (when my words don't come out a jumbled out of order mess that is) and my typing......well that does leave something to be desired but its certainly above a 12 year olds level if for nothing else then then the sheer lack of gratuitous "lols" and misplaced exclamation points.

[Thanas]

It shows them choking him. Any sane person knows that chokeholds are not good unless you really want the person to get unconscious.

[Lost Soal]

Meanwhile the guy who fiilmed the incident has been indited.
Really!

A US grand jury decided on Wednesday (3 December) against charging a police officer with the death of an unarmed black man but prosecutors managed to seal an indictment against the man who caught the entire incident on camera.

In August, a month after Ramsey Orta filmed the incident which took Eric Garner's life, he was arrested on weapons charges by narcotics police who alleged that they saw Orta put a handgun in the waistband of a companion outside a hotel.

Orta, who told police at the time of his arrest "you're just mad because I filmed your boy", believes that the charges were falsely raised against him because he shot the viral video which drew criticism towards the NYPD.

"When they searched me, they didn't find nothing on me," Orta said of his arrest.

"And the same cop that searched me, he told me clearly himself, that karma's a b*tch, what goes around comes around.

"I had nothing to do with this. I would be stupid to walk around with a gun after me being in the spotlight," he added.

The grand jury in Staten Island, New York, did not accept this account and charged Orta with third-degree criminal weapon possession and criminal firearm possession.

In comparison to Orta's arrest, prosecutors decided not to charge Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who used the chokehold on Garner, despite a doctor ruling that his death was partially caused by the chokehold placed on him by Pantaleo.

Orta's wife, Chrissie, said that the charges against the man who filmed Garner's death were "total BS" and were only placed against him because of his role in documenting the incident.

"It's obvious what they're doing: they're trying to shut him up," his wife said.

"They're trying to keep him away. They're trying to find anything to crucify him. They're bringing up his past, when they should be bringing up the officer's past, who committed this murder."

The fatal 17 July encounter saw a fight break out and Garner attempt to stop it before being approached by police officers who accused him of selling untaxed cigarettes.

Garner, 43, began to argue with the officers about why he was being targeted before an officer used a chokehold - banned by the New York Police Department (NYPD) - to apprehend him. Garner can be heard shouting "I can't breathe" in the footage shot by Orta and he died soon after the hold.

The grand jury decision has led to the US justice department launching a civil rights investigation into Garner's death and caused mass street protests in New York City.

The decision not to charge the officer comes just a week after police officer Darren Wilson was not indicted for the death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in the town of Ferguson, Missouri.

[Thanas]

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Joun_Lord]

It shows them choking him. Any sane person knows that chokeholds are not good unless you really want the person to get unconscious.

A properly rendered chokehold as used by law enforcement is not really supposed to choke but strangle, cut off bloodflow and not airflow. It as far as I'm aware IS to render a person unconscious and thus unable to resist their blue overlords. It is still used by law enforcement (though banned for use by the NYPD according to news reports in this thread) so the use of it is not totally hinky. I have unfortunately not watched enough MMA or martial arts movies to say whether or not a chokehold is properly applied or not, so I could not say in regards to the video, "This cop be choking the life out of that dude".

[Enigma]

This is just my view, not taking into account all the other police departments in the country but NYPD is thoroughly corrupt. After all these years they are still pissed at Serpico for what he did. Who'd have thought that the NYPD morphed into the Mafia.

I came to this country originally thinking that despite some bad apples that overall the police are your friends, but now? Forget it.