New York Grand Jury Does Not Indict Officer in Choking Death

[homersapien 11,362]

Even prominent conservatives see this for what it is. This shouldn't be so hard to grasp and it's not a left/right issue. It's a justice issue. Some excerpts:

"The grand jury's decision not to bring any charges against the officer who killed Garner is inexplicable. It defies reason. It makes no sense," wrote Sean Davis at The Federalist. "Unlike the Michael Brown case, we don't have to rely on shaky and unreliable testimony from so-called eyewitnesses. We don't need to review bullet trajectories or forensics. All we have to do is watch the video and believe our own eyes."

Leon H. Wolf on RedState.com wrote: "This decision is really and truly baffling to me, and infuriating besides. I understand the vast majority of cops are good at their jobs and conscientious about protecting the civil rights of citizens. But there are without a doubt bad cops who make bad decisions and when they do so from a position of authority the damage they can do is exponentially worse."

Fox News syndicated columnist and contributor Charles Krauthammer said the grand jury’s decision to not indict was "totally incomprehensible."

"I think anybody who looks at the video would think this was the wrong judgment," Krauthammer said. "The problem is in our system, you don’t have double jeopardy," adding, "If a grand jury makes a mistake, that the way it is."

"I don't like Eric Holder, and in general don't approve of Feds doubling up, but the Eric Garner case merits it," tweeted Ken White, a libertarian. "This needs a U.S. Attorney."

"Seriously, can you imagine what Sam ******* Adams would have said at the news that a man had been killed over cigarette taxes," Charles C.W. Cooke of the National Review posted on Twitter.

http://www.huffingto..._n_6264886.html

I don't get the political correlation?

Unlike Michael Brown and multiple other instances of police officers and violent or deadly confrontations with black suspects that invariably break along racial and political lines, this isn't happening here. Most people, transcending racial and political categories, are seeing this for exactly what it is and are virtually unanimous in their condemnation of the grand jury's decision.

Evidently that sentiment hasn't penetrated the hallowed halls of the AUF Politics Forum yet.

Personally, I think it has transcended political sides. Just not racial.

Proof positive that not all conservatives are racists.

[Weegle777 78]

i agree with the last paragraph. He was not threatening anyone but my point that the crime dont matter is once you have decided to make an arrest you make the arrest. you cant just let the difficulty of the arrest make you decide to just leave the suspect alone. they maybe could have talked him down and maybe not. but i think with 6 officers you take him down and get it over with without letting a mob of spectators pile up around the scene. He died unfortunately. the force alone did not cause it. his health was bad already. he could have easily prevented it.

No one said just leave him alone. But we trust officers to use better judgment that the average Joe Blow on the street. There was no need to jump the guy. No one was in any danger here. Speak calmly and deescalate the situation with your wits and your cool, not chokeholds and gang tackles over selling some loosies.

And the coroner already said he died of asphyxiation due to a compressed airway. Despite his health issues, he wasn't about to keel over on his own. Now a man leaves a widow and six kids behind because a handful of hotheads couldn't be bothered with proportional responses.

And once again, you have zero knowledge of this other than a short video. Are you a law enforcement officer?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

i agree with the last paragraph. He was not threatening anyone but my point that the crime dont matter is once you have decided to make an arrest you make the arrest. you cant just let the difficulty of the arrest make you decide to just leave the suspect alone. they maybe could have talked him down and maybe not. but i think with 6 officers you take him down and get it over with without letting a mob of spectators pile up around the scene. He died unfortunately. the force alone did not cause it. his health was bad already. he could have easily prevented it.

No one said just leave him alone. But we trust officers to use better judgment that the average Joe Blow on the street. There was no need to jump the guy. No one was in any danger here. Speak calmly and deescalate the situation with your wits and your cool, not chokeholds and gang tackles over selling some loosies.

And the coroner already said he died of asphyxiation due to a compressed airway. Despite his health issues, he wasn't about to keel over on his own. Now a man leaves a widow and six kids behind because a handful of hotheads couldn't be bothered with proportional responses.

And once again, you have zero knowledge of this other than a short video. Are you a law enforcement officer?

I don't need to be law enforcement to be able to watch something that's plain as the nose on my face. Do you have any evidence, any account from any of the officers involved that something happened off camera prior to this that would substantially change the perspective of what was viewed? Some thing violent or something the would have put the officers in danger? (Officers, that I will add, that outnumbered him 7 to 1 and were all armed while he was unarmed.) If not, this is a completely irrelevant question you keep using to avoid the issue.

[Weegle777 78]

Again, no one here knows what this man's history with LE is, and no one here knows what happened before this little video was shot. Kinda funny how you vilify this officer without all the facts, then accuse others of being quick to jump to conclusions. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. But, "Mothers shouldn't have to be afraid of their sons dying when they rob stores" right? SMH.

How about explaining the relevance of that and how it justifies what the video shows.

Of which part, the part in quotes?

[Weegle777 78]

i agree with the last paragraph. He was not threatening anyone but my point that the crime dont matter is once you have decided to make an arrest you make the arrest. you cant just let the difficulty of the arrest make you decide to just leave the suspect alone. they maybe could have talked him down and maybe not. but i think with 6 officers you take him down and get it over with without letting a mob of spectators pile up around the scene. He died unfortunately. the force alone did not cause it. his health was bad already. he could have easily prevented it.

No one said just leave him alone. But we trust officers to use better judgment that the average Joe Blow on the street. There was no need to jump the guy. No one was in any danger here. Speak calmly and deescalate the situation with your wits and your cool, not chokeholds and gang tackles over selling some loosies.

And the coroner already said he died of asphyxiation due to a compressed airway. Despite his health issues, he wasn't about to keel over on his own. Now a man leaves a widow and six kids behind because a handful of hotheads couldn't be bothered with proportional responses.

And once again, you have zero knowledge of this other than a short video. Are you a law enforcement officer?

I don't need to be law enforcement to be able to watch something that's plain as the nose on my face. Do you have any evidence, any account from any of the officers involved that something happened off camera prior to this that would substantially change the perspective of what was viewed? Some thing violent or something the would have put the officers in danger? (Officers, that I will add, that outnumbered him 7 to 1 and were all armed while he was unarmed.) If not, this is a completely irrelevant question you keep using to avoid the issue.

I'm not avoiding the issue. And no I don't have any evidence, which is my point. No one knows the circumstances of what occurred before this video was shot. You are a guy from Alabama that saw a video put out by the media, and you suddenly know all the facts of the case and from your experience as a LE officer, know how this officer should do his job. Tell you what, go pick up a weapon, kiss your wife and kids goodbye every night and go patrol the streets of NY not knowing whether you will make it home and then get back to us.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

We actually do. There are multiple accounts of what went down here and absolutely ZERO of them says anything about him getting violent or threatening toward the officers. At no point did the officers or the police dept claim that they thought he was armed or that he made any threatening moves more than the slight swats he made when someone tried to grab him.

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of "he said/she said" like the Michael Brown incident where we have to rely on eyewitnesses that are contradicting each other, no one has video or even good audio of the confrontation and we have to look at forensics to piece together which story is more accurate. These cases couldn't be more different.

And sorry, but don't give me this bull**** fallback of "you go put your life on the line..." This wasn't a life threatening situation. He didn't have a weapon, didn't make a move like he had one, didn't charge anyone, didn't hit anyone. The man didn't even use foul language. And these officers used excessive force, including a chokhold that has been banned for over 20 years in NY for this very reason.

At some point, common sense needs to sink in here with you. There isn't some silver bullet piece of testimony or evidence that somehow exonerates these officers. You're seeing exactly what happened and you can trust your eyes and ears. And you don't need a badge in this situation to be able to tell them that they handled this utterly, totally and completely wrong.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Let's also make something clear here...you do not have to believe the officer had any intent to seriously injure or kill Garner to indict on manslaughter charges. Second degree manslaughter in NY is simply defined as "recklessly causing the death of someone." And indicting is not the same as convicting. It doesn't require the same level of proof as a conviction. It just says, "we think a crime was possibly committed here" and then sends it to a jury trial where evidence can be studied, cross-examined by both sides, testimony from both sides given and so on. It's not that high a burden to cross. It's simply stunning that a grand jury wouldn't at least let this go to trial. The motto seemed to be "What are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?"

[WarTim 3,456]

Officers should be brought to trial. BUT, this has NOTHING to do with race. *Fini*

[alexava 6,973]

We actually do. There are multiple accounts of what went down here and absolutely ZERO of them says anything about him getting violent or threatening toward the officers. At no point did the officers or the police dept claim that they thought he was armed or that he made any threatening moves more than the slight swats he made when someone tried to grab him.

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of "he said/she said" like the Michael Brown incident where we have to rely on eyewitnesses that are contradicting each other, no one has video or even good audio of the confrontation and we have to look at forensics to piece together which story is more accurate. These cases couldn't be more different.

And sorry, but don't give me this bull**** fallback of "you go put your life on the line..." This wasn't a life threatening situation. He didn't have a weapon, didn't make a move like he had one, didn't charge anyone, didn't hit anyone. The man didn't even use foul language. And these officers used excessive force, including a chokhold that has been banned for over 20 years in NY for this very reason.

At some point, common sense needs to sink in here with you. There isn't some silver bullet piece of testimony or evidence that somehow exonerates these officers. You're seeing exactly what happened and you can trust your eyes and ears. And you don't need a badge in this situation to be able to tell them that they handled this utterly, totally and completely wrong.

you can't let an arrest turn into a game of patty cake on a crowded street. The man had ample time to surrender he did not. The choking was a consequence of resistance. It was a little extreme. It lasted too long. It was not murder or manslaughter. It was men doing their job. Going too far? Yes. Intentionally? No.

[alexava 6,973]

Ok, you be a lawmaker for a minute. so if a lawbreaker does not wish to comply, what is your idea of how to proceed. (my point is the crime is irrelevant)

The crime is relevant. Police are taught to treat situations differently based on the circumstances. You don't throw a non-compliant jaywalker to the the ground when he disobeys an order, but you might do that to a guy that just committed armed robbery or a man who was beating the s*** out of his woman in a domestic disturbance call.

The other thing you take into account is whether the person is armed and who really has the upper hand. There were at least 6 officers surrounding an unarmed man who was not violent. He was frustrated but not violent. Realize there isn't any rush here. Let cooler heads prevail. Did these guys have a plane to catch or something that they couldn't do this more peacefully?

Use something called proportionality. And common sense. And for God's sake when a man is telling you he can't breathe, don't keep the chokehold on him and double down by half of you piling on top of him and pressing his neck to the concrete.

i agree with the last paragraph. He was not threatening anyone but my point that the crime dont matter is once you have decided to make an arrest you make the arrest. you cant just let the difficulty of the arrest make you decide to just leave the suspect alone. they maybe could have talked him down and maybe not. but i think with 6 officers you take him down and get it over with without letting a mob of spectators pile up around the scene. He died unfortunately. the force alone did not cause it. his health was bad already. he could have easily prevented it.

I find it remarkable that you would commit such rationalization to writing.

It makes me want to file it away for use in some future incident like the Arizona/Bundy incident.

do you remember my position on cliven bundy?

[TexasTiger 12,829]

We actually do. There are multiple accounts of what went down here and absolutely ZERO of them says anything about him getting violent or threatening toward the officers. At no point did the officers or the police dept claim that they thought he was armed or that he made any threatening moves more than the slight swats he made when someone tried to grab him.

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of "he said/she said" like the Michael Brown incident where we have to rely on eyewitnesses that are contradicting each other, no one has video or even good audio of the confrontation and we have to look at forensics to piece together which story is more accurate. These cases couldn't be more different.

And sorry, but don't give me this bull**** fallback of "you go put your life on the line..." This wasn't a life threatening situation. He didn't have a weapon, didn't make a move like he had one, didn't charge anyone, didn't hit anyone. The man didn't even use foul language. And these officers used excessive force, including a chokhold that has been banned for over 20 years in NY for this very reason.

At some point, common sense needs to sink in here with you. There isn't some silver bullet piece of testimony or evidence that somehow exonerates these officers. You're seeing exactly what happened and you can trust your eyes and ears. And you don't need a badge in this situation to be able to tell them that they handled this utterly, totally and completely wrong.

you can't let an arrest turn into a game of patty cake on a crowded street. The man had ample time to surrender he did not. The choking was a consequence of resistance. It was a little extreme. It lasted too long. It was not murder or manslaughter. It was men doing their job. Going too far? Yes. Intentionally? No.

Extreme. Too long. Too far. You just made the case for recklessness.

[alexava 6,973]

We actually do. There are multiple accounts of what went down here and absolutely ZERO of them says anything about him getting violent or threatening toward the officers. At no point did the officers or the police dept claim that they thought he was armed or that he made any threatening moves more than the slight swats he made when someone tried to grab him.

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of "he said/she said" like the Michael Brown incident where we have to rely on eyewitnesses that are contradicting each other, no one has video or even good audio of the confrontation and we have to look at forensics to piece together which story is more accurate. These cases couldn't be more different.

And sorry, but don't give me this bull**** fallback of "you go put your life on the line..." This wasn't a life threatening situation. He didn't have a weapon, didn't make a move like he had one, didn't charge anyone, didn't hit anyone. The man didn't even use foul language. And these officers used excessive force, including a chokhold that has been banned for over 20 years in NY for this very reason.

At some point, common sense needs to sink in here with you. There isn't some silver bullet piece of testimony or evidence that somehow exonerates these officers. You're seeing exactly what happened and you can trust your eyes and ears. And you don't need a badge in this situation to be able to tell them that they handled this utterly, totally and completely wrong.

you can't let an arrest turn into a game of patty cake on a crowded street. The man had ample time to surrender he did not. The choking was a consequence of resistance. It was a little extreme. It lasted too long. It was not murder or manslaughter. It was men doing their job. Going too far? Yes. Intentionally? No.

Extreme. Too long. Too far. You just made the case for recklessness.

caused by what?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The man was unarmed.

The chokehold is banned by NYPD because something like this can happen.

The coroner ruled it a homicide.

The entire incident is on video.

The man was not a violent criminal. The chokehold was put on him before he did anything. He is clearly gasping and struggling to tell them he can't breathe.

There is no defending this. Sharpton has nothing to do with it. It's not about race baiters. This is not the Michael Brown situation. It was completely unwarranted. How on God's green earth is this sort of thing ok and doesn't warrant a trial?

It doesn't matter to Holder or Sharpton whether it was justified or not. That part is irrelevant to them. Whether the cops were right or wrong according to the law does not enter into their equation. Actual justice is not what they are about. Those two will turn anything and everything into a Michael Brown situation. To him it's always about race, whether it actually was or not. I'm not making any statement on the case itself or whether the cops should or should not have been charge. It looks bad to me. I will say that much.

What's irrelevant to this issue is Sharpton or Holder. What is relevant is the fricked up judicial system in Long Island that would fail to indict this officer for choking a man to death over some damn untaxed cigarettes.

this choking should not have happened but it was not over cigarettes. it was resisting arrest. get that straight at least.

Are you suggesting that resisting without violence is sufficient cause for the use of deadly force?

when one resists arrest LE cannot just decide not to arrest because the man does not comply. LE must use the necessary force. this man was enormous and made it clear he was not going to comply. THis takedown would not have killed a healthy person(most likely). I feel this man forced police to be physical. the only problem i have is the length of time he was in the choke/sleeper hold. like Barkley said they did not intend to kill him. This all was not necessary if HE complies with the police in the 1st place. To answer your question, or correct your question, they did not use "deadly force". He was just not physically fit enough to endure the force required to subdue him.

Have you stopped thinking? Didn't use deadly force? Explain again, how you account for the dead body.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

He wasn't choked. Might want to correct the headline.

You might want to check the coroner's report.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The man was unarmed.

The chokehold is banned by NYPD because something like this can happen.

The coroner ruled it a homicide.

The entire incident is on video.

The man was not a violent criminal. The chokehold was put on him before he did anything. He is clearly gasping and struggling to tell them he can't breathe.

There is no defending this. Sharpton has nothing to do with it. It's not about race baiters. This is not the Michael Brown situation. It was completely unwarranted. How on God's green earth is this sort of thing ok and doesn't warrant a trial?

I agree with this.

And I will add, anyone who wants to make this about Al Sharpton, is just as bad as Al Sharpton.

No. This is a clear cut case of negligent homicide and should be tried as such. ALL I was pointing out is the FACT that al-jesse-obama-holder WILL make it about race. Right on cue...they HAVE already fulfilled my prophecy. Class, literally, dismissed...

Thank you for your comment.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

you can't let an arrest turn into a game of patty cake on a crowded street.

False dilemma. The choices weren't choke him to the ground and pile on top or play patty cake.

The man had ample time to surrender he did not.

Still doesn't give one the right to use excessive force when no one's life is in danger.

The choking was a consequence of resistance.

His resistance was mostly verbal. Even when they grabbed him, as big as he was he didn't start throwing people to the ground or flinging punches. And the choking was against department policy. It was a consequence of an impatient police officer not using his brain.

It was a little extreme. It lasted too long. It was not murder or manslaughter. It was men doing their job. Going too far? Yes. Intentionally? No.

bull****. And intent has nothing to do with a second degree manslaughter charge.

You should be ashamed twisting yourself in a pretzel to defend this. If this is ok, we literally should just scrap all laws regarding proper police conduct and just let them do whatever the hell they want. There's really no point in bothering if sane, grown, reasonably educated people can't watch that video and see that it was all sorts of wrong and deserved to go to trial. Again, not an automatic conviction, but a trial where both sides can present evidence and the officer can be cross-examined.

[Weegle777 78]

We actually do. There are multiple accounts of what went down here and absolutely ZERO of them says anything about him getting violent or threatening toward the officers. At no point did the officers or the police dept claim that they thought he was armed or that he made any threatening moves more than the slight swats he made when someone tried to grab him.

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of "he said/she said" like the Michael Brown incident where we have to rely on eyewitnesses that are contradicting each other, no one has video or even good audio of the confrontation and we have to look at forensics to piece together which story is more accurate. These cases couldn't be more different.

And sorry, but don't give me this bull**** fallback of "you go put your life on the line..." This wasn't a life threatening situation. He didn't have a weapon, didn't make a move like he had one, didn't charge anyone, didn't hit anyone. The man didn't even use foul language. And these officers used excessive force, including a chokhold that has been banned for over 20 years in NY for this very reason.

At some point, common sense needs to sink in here with you. There isn't some silver bullet piece of testimony or evidence that somehow exonerates these officers. You're seeing exactly what happened and you can trust your eyes and ears. And you don't need a badge in this situation to be able to tell them that they handled this utterly, totally and completely wrong.

You believe that it's a BS fallback because you are convicted by it. And again, the grand jury saw something that made them believe that this officer didn't deserve to be brought to trial. End of story. THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT. Crap, if we want to base this stuff on a short video, then Michael Brown, based on a short video that I saw, was a thug, militant punk criminal that, if the store owner had had a weapon, would have been absolutely justified in shooting and killing him. Did the cops use excessive force in the short video against Garner? Maybe so, but the grand jury decided against it. Does that make them idiots like you called them? No.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

We actually do. There are multiple accounts of what went down here and absolutely ZERO of them says anything about him getting violent or threatening toward the officers. At no point did the officers or the police dept claim that they thought he was armed or that he made any threatening moves more than the slight swats he made when someone tried to grab him.

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of "he said/she said" like the Michael Brown incident where we have to rely on eyewitnesses that are contradicting each other, no one has video or even good audio of the confrontation and we have to look at forensics to piece together which story is more accurate. These cases couldn't be more different.

And sorry, but don't give me this bull**** fallback of "you go put your life on the line..." This wasn't a life threatening situation. He didn't have a weapon, didn't make a move like he had one, didn't charge anyone, didn't hit anyone. The man didn't even use foul language. And these officers used excessive force, including a chokhold that has been banned for over 20 years in NY for this very reason.

At some point, common sense needs to sink in here with you. There isn't some silver bullet piece of testimony or evidence that somehow exonerates these officers. You're seeing exactly what happened and you can trust your eyes and ears. And you don't need a badge in this situation to be able to tell them that they handled this utterly, totally and completely wrong.

You believe that it's a BS fallback because you are convicted by it. And again, the grand jury saw something that made them believe that this officer didn't deserve to be brought to trial. End of story. THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT. Crap, if we want to base this stuff on a short video, then Michael Brown, based on a short video that I saw, was a thug, militant punk criminal that, if the store owner had had a weapon, would have been absolutely justified in shooting and killing him. Did the cops use excessive force in the short video against Garner? Maybe so, but the grand jury decided against it. Does that make them idiots like you called them? No.

Possible but, the video is extremely compelling. What do you think caused the grand jury to decline the indictment? Whatever you continue to allude to must be extremely compelling in light of the video and statistical evidence for indictments. What do you know that supports your argument? Is your argument solely based on the hypothetical that, there COULD be something the video doesn't explain? If that is the case, I wonder why no one seems to want to take the time to explain it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

You believe that it's a BS fallback because you are convicted by it.

I'm not "convicted" by a thing you've said. Save your penetrating pop psychology musings for people who frequent fortune tellers and palm readers.

And again, the grand jury saw something that made them believe that this officer didn't deserve to be brought to trial. End of story. THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT.

They didn't see anything more. You saw what happened. They saw what happened. The police officers and police union have spoken on this and aside from trying to say it wasn't a chokehold have offered zilch in terms of anything before the video starts that would justify their level of force. Nothing. And you know as well as I do that if there were such extenuating circumstances, we all would have heard about them. The reason you haven't is because they don't exist.

Crap, if we want to base this stuff on a short video, then Michael Brown, based on a short video that I saw, was a thug, militant punk criminal that, if the store owner had had a weapon, would have been absolutely justified in shooting and killing him.

And I think that in the Brown case, that video was a piece that undermined his friend's "compliant, gentle giant" story. But this video is far more complete than anything we had in the Brown case. The situations really aren't comparable except as a study in contrasts.

Did the cops use excessive force in the short video against Garner? Maybe so, but the grand jury decided against it. Does that make them idiots like you called them? No.

Not "maybe so", yes, most definitely. And yes, they are idiots. That's being more kind than calling them racists. Being stupid at least doesn't carry with it bad motives.

[Weegle777 78]

We actually do. There are multiple accounts of what went down here and absolutely ZERO of them says anything about him getting violent or threatening toward the officers. At no point did the officers or the police dept claim that they thought he was armed or that he made any threatening moves more than the slight swats he made when someone tried to grab him.

You seem to be under the impression that this is a case of "he said/she said" like the Michael Brown incident where we have to rely on eyewitnesses that are contradicting each other, no one has video or even good audio of the confrontation and we have to look at forensics to piece together which story is more accurate. These cases couldn't be more different.

And sorry, but don't give me this bull**** fallback of "you go put your life on the line..." This wasn't a life threatening situation. He didn't have a weapon, didn't make a move like he had one, didn't charge anyone, didn't hit anyone. The man didn't even use foul language. And these officers used excessive force, including a chokhold that has been banned for over 20 years in NY for this very reason.

At some point, common sense needs to sink in here with you. There isn't some silver bullet piece of testimony or evidence that somehow exonerates these officers. You're seeing exactly what happened and you can trust your eyes and ears. And you don't need a badge in this situation to be able to tell them that they handled this utterly, totally and completely wrong.

You believe that it's a BS fallback because you are convicted by it. And again, the grand jury saw something that made them believe that this officer didn't deserve to be brought to trial. End of story. THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT. Crap, if we want to base this stuff on a short video, then Michael Brown, based on a short video that I saw, was a thug, militant punk criminal that, if the store owner had had a weapon, would have been absolutely justified in shooting and killing him. Did the cops use excessive force in the short video against Garner? Maybe so, but the grand jury decided against it. Does that make them idiots like you called them? No.

Possible but, the video is extremely compelling. What do you think caused the grand jury to decline the indictment? Whatever you continue to allude to must be extremely compelling in light of the video and statistical evidence for indictments. What do you know that supports your argument? Is your argument solely based on the hypothetical that, there COULD be something the video doesn't explain? If that is the case, I wonder why no one seems to want to take the time to explain it.

That is a very good question. I don't have a clue as to why they didn't indict, which is why I take the stance that they apparently saw something that changed their minds. I do wonder what the racial makeup of the GJ was though. That would be interesting to know.

[Weegle777 78]

You believe that it's a BS fallback because you are convicted by it.

I'm not "convicted" by a thing you've said. Save your penetrating pop psychology musings for people who frequent fortune tellers and palm readers.

And again, the grand jury saw something that made them believe that this officer didn't deserve to be brought to trial. End of story. THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT.

They didn't see anything more. You saw what happened. They saw what happened. The police officers and police union have spoken on this and aside from trying to say it wasn't a chokehold have offered zilch in terms of anything before the video starts that would justify their level of force. Nothing. And you know as well as I do that if there were such extenuating circumstances, we all would have heard about them. The reason you haven't is because they don't exist.

Crap, if we want to base this stuff on a short video, then Michael Brown, based on a short video that I saw, was a thug, militant punk criminal that, if the store owner had had a weapon, would have been absolutely justified in shooting and killing him.

And I think that in the Brown case, that video was a piece that undermined his friend's "compliant, gentle giant" story. But this video is far more complete than anything we had in the Brown case. The situations really aren't comparable except as a study in contrasts.

Did the cops use excessive force in the short video against Garner? Maybe so, but the grand jury decided against it. Does that make them idiots like you called them? No.

Not "maybe so", yes, most definitely. And yes, they are idiots. That's being more kind than calling them racists. Being stupid at least doesn't carry with it bad motives.

Wow, what a lunatic rant of someone having all the facts! Were you on the GJ? No? Then you are clueless as to what they saw.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

You believe that it's a BS fallback because you are convicted by it.

I'm not "convicted" by a thing you've said. Save your penetrating pop psychology musings for people who frequent fortune tellers and palm readers.

And again, the grand jury saw something that made them believe that this officer didn't deserve to be brought to trial. End of story. THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT.

They didn't see anything more. You saw what happened. They saw what happened. The police officers and police union have spoken on this and aside from trying to say it wasn't a chokehold have offered zilch in terms of anything before the video starts that would justify their level of force. Nothing. And you know as well as I do that if there were such extenuating circumstances, we all would have heard about them. The reason you haven't is because they don't exist.

Crap, if we want to base this stuff on a short video, then Michael Brown, based on a short video that I saw, was a thug, militant punk criminal that, if the store owner had had a weapon, would have been absolutely justified in shooting and killing him.

And I think that in the Brown case, that video was a piece that undermined his friend's "compliant, gentle giant" story. But this video is far more complete than anything we had in the Brown case. The situations really aren't comparable except as a study in contrasts.

Did the cops use excessive force in the short video against Garner? Maybe so, but the grand jury decided against it. Does that make them idiots like you called them? No.

Not "maybe so", yes, most definitely. And yes, they are idiots. That's being more kind than calling them racists. Being stupid at least doesn't carry with it bad motives.

Wow, what a lunatic rant of someone having all the facts! Were you on the GJ? No? Then you are clueless as to what they saw.

No, just a person with two good eyes, two good ears and a functioning brain trained in common sense and logical deduction. Evidently there's a dearth of such individuals on Long Island.

You have an amazing amount of faith this grand jury.

[Weegle777 78]

Faith in humanity is something that I have little of. I would be curious to know what the racial and background makeup of that GJ was though, that would be very telling.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

You believe that it's a BS fallback because you are convicted by it.

I'm not "convicted" by a thing you've said. Save your penetrating pop psychology musings for people who frequent fortune tellers and palm readers.

And again, the grand jury saw something that made them believe that this officer didn't deserve to be brought to trial. End of story. THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT.

They didn't see anything more. You saw what happened. They saw what happened. The police officers and police union have spoken on this and aside from trying to say it wasn't a chokehold have offered zilch in terms of anything before the video starts that would justify their level of force. Nothing. And you know as well as I do that if there were such extenuating circumstances, we all would have heard about them. The reason you haven't is because they don't exist.

Crap, if we want to base this stuff on a short video, then Michael Brown, based on a short video that I saw, was a thug, militant punk criminal that, if the store owner had had a weapon, would have been absolutely justified in shooting and killing him.

And I think that in the Brown case, that video was a piece that undermined his friend's "compliant, gentle giant" story. But this video is far more complete than anything we had in the Brown case. The situations really aren't comparable except as a study in contrasts.

Did the cops use excessive force in the short video against Garner? Maybe so, but the grand jury decided against it. Does that make them idiots like you called them? No.

Not "maybe so", yes, most definitely. And yes, they are idiots. That's being more kind than calling them racists. Being stupid at least doesn't carry with it bad motives.

Wow, what a lunatic rant of someone having all the facts! Were you on the GJ? No? Then you are clueless as to what they saw.

I'm not trying to be an @$$ but, you do realize that sword cuts both ways. We have to make judgement based on what we DO know. It seems unlikely that there is some mysterious evidence, more compelling than the video. It is basically a first hand eyewitness account. What do you think is potentially undisclosed?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Faith in humanity is something that I have little of. I would be curious to know what the racial and background makeup of that GJ was though, that would be very telling.

You are expressing a metric ton of faith in humanity in your belief that there just must have been something to make the grand jury not indict.

From CNN, "the grand jury was made up of 14 white and nine nonwhite members, according to law enforcement sources."