New York Grand Jury Does Not Indict Officer in Choking Death

[TitanTiger 20,469]

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.

First of all, I don't need a historical dissertation on all his conversations with law enforcement to see that this was excessive use of force. The incident is there on video for anyone with two eyes, two ears and functioning brain cells to watch.

Second, I do know what he had run-ins with the law for. He had been previously arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false personation. Not exactly "armed and dangerous."

[AUUSN 823]

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.

Or stand over him and not perform CPR as he dies.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

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.

Or stand over him and not perform CPR as he dies.

For seven minutes.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

Or failure to comply. Depending on your perspective.

Yeah, my perspective is that putting a chokehold that's been banned by your police department for over 20 years and tackling a man to the ground with half a dozen police officers over some untaxed cigarette sales is excessive use of force.

I'm hardly a person that jumps on police every time one of these situations crops up. I happen to believe Darren Wilson's story is close to the truth of how the Michael Brown shooting went down. But this is bull****. You know it. I know it. And it makes my blood boil that anyone would attempt to defend it or play it down as simply "failure to comply."

If you read my earlier post you should have noted I clearly stated I was not fond of how this went down. I truly wish Garner had put out his hands and accepted the cuffs. I also wish the officer had not restrained him in the manner you cite as a chokehold. I think it rather clear that others view this differently than you. Namely the Grand Jury.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

Or failure to comply. Depending on your perspective.

Yeah, my perspective is that putting a chokehold that's been banned by your police department for over 20 years and tackling a man to the ground with half a dozen police officers over some untaxed cigarette sales is excessive use of force.

I'm hardly a person that jumps on police every time one of these situations crops up. I happen to believe Darren Wilson's story is close to the truth of how the Michael Brown shooting went down. But this is bull****. You know it. I know it. And it makes my blood boil that anyone would attempt to defend it or play it down as simply "failure to comply."

If you read my earlier post you should have noted I clearly stated I was not fond of how this went down. I truly wish Garner had put out his hands and accepted the cuffs. I also wish the officer had not restrained him in the manner you cite as a chokehold. I think it rather clear that others view this differently than you. Namely the Grand Jury.

Yes, because they're idiots. This should have at least gone to trial.

And us white folks wonder why so many black people are wary of police and lack faith in the justice system.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

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.

Or stand over him and not perform CPR as he dies.

For seven minutes.

That too was troubling.

[Weegle777 78]

Or failure to comply. Depending on your perspective.

Yeah, my perspective is that putting a chokehold that's been banned by your police department for over 20 years and tackling a man to the ground with half a dozen police officers over some untaxed cigarette sales is excessive use of force.

I'm hardly a person that jumps on police every time one of these situations crops up. I happen to believe Darren Wilson's story is close to the truth of how the Michael Brown shooting went down. But this is bull****. You know it. I know it. And it makes my blood boil that anyone would attempt to defend it or play it down as simply "failure to comply."

If you read my earlier post you should have noted I clearly stated I was not fond of how this went down. I truly wish Garner had put out his hands and accepted the cuffs. I also wish the officer had not restrained him in the manner you cite as a chokehold. I think it rather clear that others view this differently than you. Namely the Grand Jury.

Yes, because they're idiots. This should have at least gone to trial.

And us white folks wonder why so many black people are wary of police and lack faith in the justice system.

Said the guy that has no clue about the facts of the case, and was not in the room with the grand jury.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

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.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/eric-garner-conservatives-chokehold_n_6264886.html

[TitanTiger 20,469]

Or failure to comply. Depending on your perspective.

Yeah, my perspective is that putting a chokehold that's been banned by your police department for over 20 years and tackling a man to the ground with half a dozen police officers over some untaxed cigarette sales is excessive use of force.

I'm hardly a person that jumps on police every time one of these situations crops up. I happen to believe Darren Wilson's story is close to the truth of how the Michael Brown shooting went down. But this is bull****. You know it. I know it. And it makes my blood boil that anyone would attempt to defend it or play it down as simply "failure to comply."

If you read my earlier post you should have noted I clearly stated I was not fond of how this went down. I truly wish Garner had put out his hands and accepted the cuffs. I also wish the officer had not restrained him in the manner you cite as a chokehold. I think it rather clear that others view this differently than you. Namely the Grand Jury.

Yes, because they're idiots. This should have at least gone to trial.

And us white folks wonder why so many black people are wary of police and lack faith in the justice system.

Said the guy that has no clue about the facts of the case, and was not in the room with the grand jury.

I saw the thing go down with my own eyes. Are you trolling? I seriously can't believe you can watch that and somehow maintain some blind faith that the grand jury saw or heard something that would make a dent in what you can see and hear for yourself.

This wasn't the Michael Brown case with contradictory eyewitnesses and people changing their stories. It's right there on video.

[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.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

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?

[Weegle777 78]

No I'm not trolling. I never said that force wasn't excessive, I said that we are only privy to a short video. We don't have all of the facts as the general public. Do you know how full jails would be if we just looked at limited facts of cases? I'm just saying that we shouldn't vilify this officer as a rogue murderous thug without all of the facts.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

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.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

No I'm not trolling. I never said that force wasn't excessive, I said that we are only privy to a short video. We don't have all of the facts as the general public. Do you know how full jails would be if we just looked at limited facts of cases? I'm just saying that we shouldn't vilify this officer as a rogue murderous thug without all of the facts.

No one said anything about being a villainous thug. We are saying that he should have at least gone to trial for something like second degree manslaughter...which is defined in NY State law as simply "recklessly causing the death of another person."

And we saw all we needed to see. There is no contention by any of the officers that anything of significance happened prior to this video starting that would shed new light on the circumstances.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

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.

[homersapien 11,352]

I have a busy evening planned. I heard that the wrong rev Sharpton is having a press conf. in Harlem. Does anyone know what time? I want to get my popcorn and watch the looting,thieving,burning,rioting, etc.....Do they have to wait for al and jesse to set the time to start the festivities?

This sounds as if it was inspired by an "Association of Latent Racists" e-mail delineating talking points.

[homersapien 11,352]

WT, the good part is it gets old tax avoider Al back to NY. It's interesting that some think it's OK for a person to commit a crime knowing there is a high risk of getting hurt in the process or after the fact by law enforcement.

See you're on the same mailing list. Hardly surprising.

[homersapien 11,352]

Got to love the extremist conservatives and their hypocricy. Cliven Bundy should fight the law but this guy should just shut his mouth and put his hands behind his back.

Good point.

[homersapien 11,352]

Does anyone here know what this man's history with regards to his interaction with officers before this incident?

Does anyone here know what happened BEFORE this "video" was shot?

If not, your comments are ignorant and uninformed.

Et tu Weegle?

So much for cop cams.

[homersapien 11,352]

No taxation without asphyxiation!

No idiocy without Libs.......

You are so out of your league.

[homersapien 11,352]

Does anyone here know what this man's history with regards to his interaction with officers before this incident?

Does anyone here know what happened BEFORE this "video" was shot?

If not, your comments are ignorant and uninformed.

Have you not heard? It is all about race. The cops killed him because he was black.......

Another example.

[homersapien 11,352]

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(ly fat) 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.

Are you serious?

[homersapien 11,352]

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 made a comment in another thread about the "militarization" of our police. This is a perfect example.

[homersapien 11,352]

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.

[homersapien 11,352]

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.