New York Grand Jury Does Not Indict Officer in Choking Death

[homersapien 11,352]

If Mr. Garner had been white you would have gotten a 5 second mention on the back end of the newscast and you know it.

Yeah, just like Clive Bundy. :-\

[homersapien 11,352]

Maybe they looked at the video and saw it like me and Charles Barkley did. Guys forced to do their job who did not intend to hurt or kill anyone.

You keep harping on intent. Do you truly not understand negligence or recklessness?

yes and Mr garner was negligent in compliance with authorities. No guns. Flashlights, police batons,tazers.pepper spray. Just physical force was used. It is unfortunate he couldn't simply surrender. No crime was committed by the cops. It could be a learning point for them and potential suspects as well.

I suspect you'd feel differently if it happened to your child.

Apparently Alexava feels cops cannot make mistakes, by definition.

[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. :laugh:/>

They saw the same video we saw.

Grand Juries are basically "led" to their conclusions by the prosecuting attorney. There is no real standard for the way the PA presents the case. Normally, the PA wants to obtain an indictment.

It's why...

"Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating:

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

Like Titan said, this grand jury was either stupid or irresponsibly compliant to a PA who was trying to protect the LEO.

All of that is a possibility.It's not fact because we don't know and won't know unless the members of the GJ are allowed to speak.

[homersapien 11,352]

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. :laugh:/>

They saw the same video we saw.

Grand Juries are basically "led" to their conclusions by the prosecuting attorney. There is no real standard for the way the PA presents the case. Normally, the PA wants to obtain an indictment.

It's why...

"Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." The data suggests he was barely exaggerating:

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them."

Like Titan said, this grand jury was either stupid or irresponsibly compliant to a PA who was trying to protect the LEO.

All of that is a possibility.It's not fact because we don't know and won't know unless the members of the GJ are allowed to speak.

Actually, we know what happened. It was recorded.

Presumably, the grand jury viewed the recording. Are you suggesting they didn't see the video?

[TitanTiger 20,465]

Should have been negligent homicide. This isn't Ferguson, and the cop deserved a trial.

Thank you. I was beginning to worry about this place. Still am a little.

[Weegle777 78]

Not at all. But, until we hear from the jurors, none of us will know what happened in that room or what they saw. Were the non-Caucasian members overruled? Did any of the non-Caucasian members vote against indictment? Did the PA try to persuade the members? We won't know until we hear from them.

[Weegle777 78]

Should have been negligent homicide. This isn't Ferguson, and the cop deserved a trial.

Thank you. I was beginning to worry about this place. Still am a little.

You finally got somebody to track with you!

[homersapien 11,352]

Not at all. But, until we hear from the jurors, none of us will know what happened in that room or what they saw. Were the non-Caucasian members overruled? Did any of the non-Caucasian members vote against indictment? Did the PA try to persuade the members? We won't know until we hear from them.

None of that changes the facts as revealed on the video.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I think this really has more to do with police officers rarely being prosecuted with the same zeal (regardless of circumstances) that you or I would be, than it does race. In some cases, I would consider that reluctance to prosecute or convict to be a positive, as I am generally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. In other cases, such as this one, I consider it a negative. It is true that police are granted the authority to exercise their good judgment in the application of force, but that also carries with it the responsibility of using your good judgment in exercising restraint. It is not carte blanche to gang tackle and choke a man because he did not smile, thank them, and jump into the handcuffs and waiting cruiser for a gleeful ride to Riker's Island. Every suspect is not going to be immediately cooperative, and a simple matter of selling loose cigarettes in a neighborhood known for it, is not the kind of situation that needed to be escalated to the point of wrestling a man to the ground. Let him say his peace, try to verbally de-escalate the situation, give the man a summons, and let him be on his way.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

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.

Good point.

[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?

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.

You've suddenly reached that conclusion?

[AUFAN78 3,889]

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?"

I wasn't there, but I suspect the Grand Jury struggled with "recklessly" vs. unfortunate circumstance. They were likely presented with the reality that the officer was unaware of Garners medical history. The confusing part to me is how they viewed the 7 minutes they allowed Garner to lie dying without performing CPR.

[homersapien 11,352]

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.

You've suddenly reached that conclusion?

Not at all. But all racists are conservatives.

[alexava 6,972]

Maybe they looked at the video and saw it like me and Charles Barkley did. Guys forced to do their job who did not intend to hurt or kill anyone.

First, I am not aware that Barkley has commented on this incident.

More importantly, there is no requirement of "intent" for the appropriate charges. A mistake in judgment and action is sufficient.

It's called accountability. And given their powers, accountability is something all LEOs should be held to, regardless of how difficult their job is. Not everyone can be a good cop.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/us/charles-barkley-on-race/

[AUFAN78 3,889]

I think this really has more to do with police officers rarely being prosecuted with the same zeal (regardless of circumstances) that you or I would be, than it does race. In some cases, I would consider that reluctance to prosecute or convict to be a positive, as I am generally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. In other cases, such as this one, I consider it a negative. It is true that police are granted the authority to exercise their good judgment in the application of force, but that also carries with it the responsibility of using your good judgment in exercising restraint. It is not carte blanche to gang tackle and choke a man because he did not smile, thank them, and jump into the handcuffs and waiting cruiser for a gleeful ride to Riker's Island. Every suspect is not going to be immediately cooperative, and a simple matter of selling loose cigarettes in a neighborhood known for it, is not the kind of situation that needed to be escalated to the point of wrestling a man to the ground. Let him say his peace, try to verbally de-escalate the situation, give the man a summons, and let him be on his way.

I like your line of thinking. Is simply handing out a summons a real possibility? Is it protocol? Should it be?

[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?

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.

You've suddenly reached that conclusion?

Not at all. But all racists are conservatives.

[cooltigger21 0]

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.

You've suddenly reached that conclusion?

Not at all. But all racists are conservatives.

Robert Byrd says hello

[alexava 6,972]

Maybe they looked at the video and saw it like me and Charles Barkley did. Guys forced to do their job who did not intend to hurt or kill anyone.

You keep harping on intent. Do you truly not understand negligence or recklessness?

yes and Mr garner was negligent in compliance with authorities. No guns. Flashlights, police batons,tazers.pepper spray. Just physical force was used. It is unfortunate he couldn't simply surrender. No crime was committed by the cops. It could be a learning point for them and potential suspects as well.

I suspect you'd feel differently if it happened to your child.

Apparently Alexava feels cops cannot make mistakes, by definition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/26/officials-release-video-names-in-fatal-police-shooting-of-12-year-old-cleveland-boy/

here is one to all you cop hating race baiters. get mad about this. although race probably had nothing to do with it. it was a retarded cop. i know this has it's own thread but i needed to counter a baseless claim.

[autigeremt 6,562]

Should have been negligent homicide. This isn't Ferguson, and the cop deserved a trial.

Thank you. I was beginning to worry about this place. Still am a little.

Common sense on this one. I'm looking at it from the totality, and not from the fringes....of course, maybe I am the fringe? lol

[homersapien 11,352]

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.

You've suddenly reached that conclusion?

Not at all. But all racists are conservatives.

Robert Byrd says hello

Robert Byrd is no liberal.

But more importantly, I wasn't speaking in historical terms. Obviously, there have been times in the past where racism was found on both sides of the political spectrum.

But in today's terms, a racist cannot be a liberal, by definition. At least if you define liberals as favoring progressive thinking as opposed to clinging to traditional modes of thought.

[AUFAN78 3,889]

Maybe they looked at the video and saw it like me and Charles Barkley did. Guys forced to do their job who did not intend to hurt or kill anyone.

You keep harping on intent. Do you truly not understand negligence or recklessness?

yes and Mr garner was negligent in compliance with authorities. No guns. Flashlights, police batons,tazers.pepper spray. Just physical force was used. It is unfortunate he couldn't simply surrender. No crime was committed by the cops. It could be a learning point for them and potential suspects as well.

I suspect you'd feel differently if it happened to your child.

Apparently Alexava feels cops cannot make mistakes, by definition.

http://www.washingto...-cleveland-boy/

here is one to all you cop hating race baiters. get mad about this. although race probably had nothing to do with it. it was a retarded cop. i know this has it's own thread but i needed to counter a baseless claim.

Imagine that, emotions getting in the way of clarity. On the AUFamily Political Forum?

[homersapien 11,352]

Maybe they looked at the video and saw it like me and Charles Barkley did. Guys forced to do their job who did not intend to hurt or kill anyone.

First, I am not aware that Barkley has commented on this incident.

More importantly, there is no requirement of "intent" for the appropriate charges. A mistake in judgment and action is sufficient.

It's called accountability. And given their powers, accountability is something all LEOs should be held to, regardless of how difficult their job is. Not everyone can be a good cop.

http://www.cnn.com/2...arkley-on-race/

OK, what did Barkley say about the Garner case?

Never mind, this is what he said:

“I don’t think that was a homicide. I think the cops were trying to arrest him and they got a little aggressive,” Barkley said of the July arrest that led to Garner’s death. “I think excessive force — something like that — but to go straight to murder?"

Which of course, begs the question. I don't know of anyone who would support murder charges.

So bottom line, even Sir Charles admits it was excessive force.

[homersapien 11,352]

Maybe they looked at the video and saw it like me and Charles Barkley did. Guys forced to do their job who did not intend to hurt or kill anyone.

You keep harping on intent. Do you truly not understand negligence or recklessness?

yes and Mr garner was negligent in compliance with authorities. No guns. Flashlights, police batons,tazers.pepper spray. Just physical force was used. It is unfortunate he couldn't simply surrender. No crime was committed by the cops. It could be a learning point for them and potential suspects as well.

I suspect you'd feel differently if it happened to your child.

Apparently Alexava feels cops cannot make mistakes, by definition.

http://www.washingto...-cleveland-boy/

here is one to all you cop hating race baiters. get mad about this. although race probably had nothing to do with it. it was a retarded cop. i know this has it's own thread but i needed to counter a baseless claim.

It's not baseless if you really think the cop who choked Gardner to death was acting appropriately.

And I disagree about the role of race in the Tamir Rice case. Being white would probably have bought him a few more seconds before the cops pulled the trigger. Maybe that would have been the difference.

[alexava 6,972]

Maybe they looked at the video and saw it like me and Charles Barkley did. Guys forced to do their job who did not intend to hurt or kill anyone.

You keep harping on intent. Do you truly not understand negligence or recklessness?

yes and Mr garner was negligent in compliance with authorities. No guns. Flashlights, police batons,tazers.pepper spray. Just physical force was used. It is unfortunate he couldn't simply surrender. No crime was committed by the cops. It could be a learning point for them and potential suspects as well.

I suspect you'd feel differently if it happened to your child.

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2014/12/slain_faulkner_university_foot.html#incart_2box

maybe, or maybe like this dad.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I think this really has more to do with police officers rarely being prosecuted with the same zeal (regardless of circumstances) that you or I would be, than it does race. In some cases, I would consider that reluctance to prosecute or convict to be a positive, as I am generally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. In other cases, such as this one, I consider it a negative. It is true that police are granted the authority to exercise their good judgment in the application of force, but that also carries with it the responsibility of using your good judgment in exercising restraint. It is not carte blanche to gang tackle and choke a man because he did not smile, thank them, and jump into the handcuffs and waiting cruiser for a gleeful ride to Riker's Island. Every suspect is not going to be immediately cooperative, and a simple matter of selling loose cigarettes in a neighborhood known for it, is not the kind of situation that needed to be escalated to the point of wrestling a man to the ground. Let him say his peace, try to verbally de-escalate the situation, give the man a summons, and let him be on his way.

I like your line of thinking. Is simply handing out a summons a real possibility? Is it protocol? Should it be?

In New York? I have no idea what their protocols are, and I'm not sure I trust them enough to tell me honestly. That said, I can think of no logical reason for why selling loose cigarettes on the street could possibly be an offense that reasonably requires someone to be arrested and taken to jail. It's certainly not something I would consider a serious enough offense that choking, tackling, and subsequently killing someone in order to take them to jail could be warranted. The charge is something I would consider more akin to speeding or running a stop sign/traffic signal (the latter of which could have legitimately endangered others), and no one is arrested for those. You get your ticket/summons, and go on your way.

Upon watching the video, these were my thoughts of the arrest itself: The suspect was obviously agitated with what he felt was police harassment, but was not anything that could be considered threatening until the officer that ultimately choked him tried to put his hands on him. In response to that, he puts his hands up and says "Don't touch me, please". No lunging, no swinging, no verbal threats. There are no nearby innocent bystanders that are visible on video. At that point, the officers should have backed off a bit (for safety) and tried to de-escalate the situation verbally. If he got combative, there would have been another officer outside of striking range that should be armed with a taser. Perhaps the taser would have killed him as well, but we'll never know.

The ultimate point is that even if he had not ended up being killed by unnecessary arrest procedures, it's still not an offense worth being tackled to the ground with knees pushing you into the pavement while being handcuffed. Officers have latitude in how they choose to charge someone. Sometimes reducing the charge to something else (thus giving a break) is all it takes to de-escalate the situation. Officers are paid to enforce the law, but they are also expected to exercise good judgment of when forceful takedowns (or lethal force) are necessary to do their job as peace officers. All types of force should be the last resort when dealing with a suspect.