New York Grand Jury Does Not Indict Officer in Choking Death

[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

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.

Um yes they can and are. The basic premise of modern day liberalism is that blacks are too stupid to take care of themselves and they need protection of the government. The white liberals don't care any more for blacks than the old kkk did. They keep them poor stupid and dependent on government so they will keep voting these same liberals back into office. Barack Obama is a huge racist and so is Eric Holder. Al Sharpton is and so is Jesse Hymietown Jackson. Robert Byrd was as liberal as they came. He'd fit right in with today democrat party in all aspects.

[AUUSN 823]

Um yes they can and are. The basic premise of modern day liberalism is that blacks are too stupid to take care of themselves and they need protection of the government. The white liberals don't care any more for blacks than the old kkk did. They keep them poor stupid and dependent on government so they will keep voting these same liberals back into office. Barack Obama is a huge racist and so is Eric Holder. Al Sharpton is and so is Jesse Hymietown Jackson. Robert Byrd was as liberal as they came. He'd fit right in with today democrat party in all aspects.

[AUFAN78 3,900]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

[AUFAN78 3,900]

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.

Sean Hannity in conversation with Sen. Rand Paul basically agreed on the excessive use of force in this case. Hannity also noted a simple summons could have and should have been served.

[alexava 6,973]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

I've had this stressed to me my whole life. My mom is a Jail Administrator, a Captain 31 years with the dept. Always comply then take your complaint higher. You will never come out on the winning end if you resist a LE officer and you could get dead. And i have, as a teenager and recently.

[AUFAN78 3,900]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

I've had this stressed to me my whole life. My mom is a Jail Administrator, a Captain 31 years with the dept. Always comply then take your complaint higher. You will never come out on the winning end if you resist a LE officer and you could get dead. And i have, as a teenager and recently.

It is troubling our media doesn't utilize positive reinforcement and provide a clear message to the youth of this country. They would much rather incite violence/protest by perpetuating the lie that these are racially motivated crimes. Now viewing CNN and we have thousands of young people in cities across America partying, smoking pot and drinking as they march our streets chanting "hands up, don't shoot!" These kids did not simply view a video and decide to protest, they followed the media narrative. Sad. Somebody, anybody please tell me how this helps these kids?

[AUUSN 823]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-04/law-puts-us-all-in-same-danger-as-eric-garner

Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner

Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.

That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.

[WarTim 3,456]

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.

Nothing really matters but the GJ. End of story...

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

I've had this stressed to me my whole life. My mom is a Jail Administrator, a Captain 31 years with the dept. Always comply then take your complaint higher. You will never come out on the winning end if you resist a LE officer and you could get dead. And i have, as a teenager and recently.

The fact that some would have to tell you that should indicate we have a serious problem either with how we train LE or the people we're giving a badge to in the first place. The token resistance the Garner gave these guys should never end up with someone dead.

[alexava 6,973]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

I've had this stressed to me my whole life. My mom is a Jail Administrator, a Captain 31 years with the dept. Always comply then take your complaint higher. You will never come out on the winning end if you resist a LE officer and you could get dead. And i have, as a teenager and recently.

The fact that some would have to tell you that should indicate we have a serious problem either with how we train LE or the people we're giving a badge to in the first place. The token resistance the Garner gave these guys should never end up with someone dead.

never is a stretch. These cops do this almost every day. The ratio of how often that choke hold causes serious injury is probably well under 1in a million. He knew he was on camera. It was banned but likely not talked about much. The grand jury did not see recklessness or negligence. They certainly didn't see a crime worthy of giving a cop with a clean record a charge of homicide. I take more issue with the tax on cigarettes which creates the black market anyway. However garner knew he was in violation. He was arrested for the same thing before.

[WarTim 3,456]

If only NY mayor did not have cops on the street ENFORCING cigarette taxes, This never would have happened. It is not about race...It IS about TAX and SPEND libs..............

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

I've had this stressed to me my whole life. My mom is a Jail Administrator, a Captain 31 years with the dept. Always comply then take your complaint higher. You will never come out on the winning end if you resist a LE officer and you could get dead. And i have, as a teenager and recently.

The fact that some would have to tell you that should indicate we have a serious problem either with how we train LE or the people we're giving a badge to in the first place. The token resistance the Garner gave these guys should never end up with someone dead.

never is a stretch. These cops do this almost every day. The ratio of how often that choke hold causes serious injury is probably well under 1in a million. He knew he was on camera. It was banned but likely not talked about much. The grand jury did not see recklessness or negligence. They certainly didn't see a crime worthy of giving a cop with a clean record a charge of homicide. I take more issue with the tax on cigarettes which creates the black market anyway. However garner knew he was in violation. He was arrested for the same thing before.

Given the specifics of this encounter it was definitely reckless and not needed. The guy didn't even start swinging or throwing people around when they grabbed him. This was a takedown you'd expect on a violent criminal, not some penny-ante loosie seller.

It was worthy of going to trial at least for negligent homicide or 2nd degree manslaughter.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

That raises a different issue, and I'm glad you mentioned it. The Sheriff's point is both logical and correct, but it does also raise an important question if you really want to get to the bottom of it: where will that grievance be addressed later? The answer to that is obvious, it will be addressed in court. Now we start getting into the problem of what the criminal justice is like for those that are poor (whether black, hispanic, or even white). If you lack the ability to post bail or obtain a bail bondsman, you are stuck in jail pending court proceedings. What do you think the odds are of having a fair chance in court if you lack the attorney that you cannot afford, or have the unmotivated public defender?

If you are poor in America, the odds in the criminal justice system are overwhelmingly stacked against you. The police are merely the first point of contact with it, and the only point of it that you individually have any hope at all of reasoning with. There is legitimate resentment of the police for the way they conduct themselves, but it also goes deeper into the heart of our criminal justice system. In other words, they have long been conditioned with the perception that their grievances will not be addressed later, and that they will be stuck in the cycle of the criminal justice system. Whether or not that perception is valid is debatable, but I would say that it is for them. It is unfortunate, and I wish I had the answers for it. What truly saddens me is that the discussion rarely reaches that far into it.

[alexava 6,973]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

That raises a different issue, and I'm glad you mentioned it. The Sheriff's point is both logical and correct, but it does also raise an important question if you really want to get to the bottom of it: where will that grievance be addressed later? The answer to that is obvious, it will be addressed in court. Now we start getting into the problem of what the criminal justice is like for those that are poor (whether black, hispanic, or even white). If you lack the ability to post bail or obtain a bail bondsman, you are stuck in jail pending court proceedings. What do you think the odds are of having a fair chance in court if you lack the attorney that you cannot afford, or have the unmotivated public defender?

If you are poor in America, the odds in the criminal justice system are overwhelmingly stacked against you. The police are merely the first point of contact with it, and the only point of it that you individually have any hope at all of reasoning with. There is legitimate resentment of the police for the way they conduct themselves, but it also goes deeper into the heart of our criminal justice system. In other words, they have long been conditioned with the perception that their grievances will not be addressed later, and that they will be stuck in the cycle of the criminal justice system. Whether or not that perception is valid is debatable, but I would say that it is for them. It is unfortunate, and I wish I had the answers for it. What truly saddens me is that the discussion rarely reaches that far into it.

you may be correct that the grievance goes nowhere in certain situations. Fighting the LEO will never help you, it will always make it worse.

[Strychnine 1,802]

That raises a different issue, and I'm glad you mentioned it. The Sheriff's point is both logical and correct, but it does also raise an important question if you really want to get to the bottom of it: where will that grievance be addressed later? The answer to that is obvious, it will be addressed in court. Now we start getting into the problem of what the criminal justice is like for those that are poor (whether black, hispanic, or even white). If you lack the ability to post bail or obtain a bail bondsman, you are stuck in jail pending court proceedings. What do you think the odds are of having a fair chance in court if you lack the attorney that you cannot afford, or have the unmotivated public defender?

If you are poor in America, the odds in the criminal justice system are overwhelmingly stacked against you. The police are merely the first point of contact with it, and the only point of it that you individually have any hope at all of reasoning with. There is legitimate resentment of the police for the way they conduct themselves, but it also goes deeper into the heart of our criminal justice system. In other words, they have long been conditioned with the perception that their grievances will not be addressed later, and that they will be stuck in the cycle of the criminal justice system. Whether or not that perception is valid is debatable, but I would say that it is for them. It is unfortunate, and I wish I had the answers for it. What truly saddens me is that the discussion rarely reaches that far into it.

you may be correct that the grievance goes nowhere in certain situations. Fighting the LEO will never help you, it will always make it worse.

What does that have to do with what I said?

[homersapien 11,374]

.......The basic premise of modern day liberalism is that blacks are too stupid to take care of themselves and they need protection of the government. The white liberals don't care any more for blacks than the old kkk did. They keep them poor stupid and dependent on government so they will keep voting these same liberals back into office. Barack Obama is a huge racist and so is Eric Holder. Al Sharpton is and so is Jesse Hymietown Jackson. Robert Byrd was as liberal as they came. He'd fit right in with today democrat party in all aspects.

Can't argue with such an obviously deranged opinion.

Since you post rational and insightful thoughts regarding football, I'd like to think your "liberals-believe..." posts are satirical.

Do you realize just how over-the-top they are?

[AUUSN 823]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

That raises a different issue, and I'm glad you mentioned it. The Sheriff's point is both logical and correct, but it does also raise an important question if you really want to get to the bottom of it: where will that grievance be addressed later? The answer to that is obvious, it will be addressed in court. Now we start getting into the problem of what the criminal justice is like for those that are poor (whether black, hispanic, or even white). If you lack the ability to post bail or obtain a bail bondsman, you are stuck in jail pending court proceedings. What do you think the odds are of having a fair chance in court if you lack the attorney that you cannot afford, or have the unmotivated public defender?

If you are poor in America, the odds in the criminal justice system are overwhelmingly stacked against you. The police are merely the first point of contact with it, and the only point of it that you individually have any hope at all of reasoning with. There is legitimate resentment of the police for the way they conduct themselves, but it also goes deeper into the heart of our criminal justice system. In other words, they have long been conditioned with the perception that their grievances will not be addressed later, and that they will be stuck in the cycle of the criminal justice system. Whether or not that perception is valid is debatable, but I would say that it is for them. It is unfortunate, and I wish I had the answers for it. What truly saddens me is that the discussion rarely reaches that far into it.

Fantastic point and you have many studies to back it up:

Overall, we found that by disproportionately stopping, charging and fining the poor and minorities, by closing the Courts to the public, and by incarcerating people for the failure to pay fines, these policies unintentionally push the poor further into poverty, prevent the homeless from accessing the housing, treatment, and jobs they so desperately need to regain stability in their lives, and violate the Constitution. These ongoing violations of the most fundamental guarantees of the Constitution are the product of a disordered, fragmented, and inefficient approach to criminal justice in St. Louis County. It represents a failure of the Municipalities to comply with the guarantees of counsel, reasonable bond assessments, and other constitutional and legal rights of those accused. And, perhaps most importantly, these practices create animosity in the community, contribute to the fractured nature of the St. Louis region, and cost the individual municipalities and the region financially. http://03a5010.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ArchCity-Defenders-Municipal-Courts-Whitepaper.pdf

[homersapien 11,374]

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/ne...tml#incart_2box

maybe, or maybe like this dad.

Wow. You'd equate Mr. Garner's actions to breaking into someone's house?

[homersapien 11,374]

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.

Nothing really matters but the GJ. End of story...

Boy, you sure are quick to roll over in the face of authority! At least when it doesn't affect you or involve one of your causes. :-\

[homersapien 11,374]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

That raises a different issue, and I'm glad you mentioned it. The Sheriff's point is both logical and correct, but it does also raise an important question if you really want to get to the bottom of it: where will that grievance be addressed later? The answer to that is obvious, it will be addressed in court. Now we start getting into the problem of what the criminal justice is like for those that are poor (whether black, hispanic, or even white). If you lack the ability to post bail or obtain a bail bondsman, you are stuck in jail pending court proceedings. What do you think the odds are of having a fair chance in court if you lack the attorney that you cannot afford, or have the unmotivated public defender?

If you are poor in America, the odds in the criminal justice system are overwhelmingly stacked against you. The police are merely the first point of contact with it, and the only point of it that you individually have any hope at all of reasoning with. There is legitimate resentment of the police for the way they conduct themselves, but it also goes deeper into the heart of our criminal justice system. In other words, they have long been conditioned with the perception that their grievances will not be addressed later, and that they will be stuck in the cycle of the criminal justice system. Whether or not that perception is valid is debatable, but I would say that it is for them. It is unfortunate, and I wish I had the answers for it. What truly saddens me is that the discussion rarely reaches that far into it.

you may be correct that the grievance goes nowhere in certain situations. Fighting the LEO will never help you, it will always make it worse.

I didn't see where Gardner was "fighting" anyone. These cops clearly over-reacted and it caused an unwarranted death. Believe it or not, cops are human and they CAN screw up and occasionally do.

[alexava 6,973]

I was just viewing a Megan Kelly segment where she interviews an African American Sheriff. The Sheriff emphatically implores black youth to comply with officers first and handle the grievance piece later. Having viewed MSNBC and CNN much of the day I wonder why these networks don't offer this narrative to our youth? The Sheriff adds that more than 70% of black youth have no father figure and thus many, many have no respect for authority. Seems only logical the liberal media should offer this advice too. Whose side are they really on? What say you?

That raises a different issue, and I'm glad you mentioned it. The Sheriff's point is both logical and correct, but it does also raise an important question if you really want to get to the bottom of it: where will that grievance be addressed later? The answer to that is obvious, it will be addressed in court. Now we start getting into the problem of what the criminal justice is like for those that are poor (whether black, hispanic, or even white). If you lack the ability to post bail or obtain a bail bondsman, you are stuck in jail pending court proceedings. What do you think the odds are of having a fair chance in court if you lack the attorney that you cannot afford, or have the unmotivated public defender?

If you are poor in America, the odds in the criminal justice system are overwhelmingly stacked against you. The police are merely the first point of contact with it, and the only point of it that you individually have any hope at all of reasoning with. There is legitimate resentment of the police for the way they conduct themselves, but it also goes deeper into the heart of our criminal justice system. In other words, they have long been conditioned with the perception that their grievances will not be addressed later, and that they will be stuck in the cycle of the criminal justice system. Whether or not that perception is valid is debatable, but I would say that it is for them. It is unfortunate, and I wish I had the answers for it. What truly saddens me is that the discussion rarely reaches that far into it.

you may be correct that the grievance goes nowhere in certain situations. Fighting the LEO will never help you, it will always make it worse.

I didn't see where Gardner was "fighting" anyone. These cops clearly over-reacted and it caused an unwarranted death. Believe it or not, cops are human and they CAN screw up and occasionally do.

and i havesaid they do, posted examples. The fact remains, you resist arrest or fight them bad things happen. Like you said they are human. Those cops had a job to doand did it. They used the force they saw fit to apprehend a 350# man that clearly refused to cooperate. It turned out to be too much force and nobody is happy about that. This cop im sure is especially remorseful. He does not deserve prison or lose his career. He would have gladly taken the man peacefully. Maybe let sit in the front seat and play with the siren or gave him a doughnut.

[japantiger 4,051]

I'll leave this to the "normal" judicial process to sort out. If the Grand Jury didn't have what it needed, then that is good enough for me. After all, OJ was innocent, right?

I think the problem we have is post 9/11 we've lost our friggin minds in regards to police power; especially at the Federal level; and the need for so many damn cops in general and the level of armament in small town police forces. We need to cut federal law enforcement down to where it was pre-9/11 (it doubled since 9/11; what the hell for?)...and ensure local police forces do what they are supposed to do...police locally.

If these guys were sent out to arrest a cigarette black-market-eere; then OK, arrest him. Don't understand why that would result in a death. But, that is probably not where I would spend my law enforcement time in the near term since murders and violent crime are rising at the fastest rate in NYsince pre-Rudy G days...

[AUUSN 823]

[AUUSN 823]

Serpico: Incidents like Eric Garner's death drive wedge between police and society

Cowardly cops living by the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mantra put the good guys in a bad light and threaten the public's right to justice.

Was I surprised by the Staten Island grand jury? Of course not. When was the last time a police officer was indicted?

This is the use of excessive force for no apparent reason on a guy who is selling loosie cigarettes; what is the threat to your well-being? If a police officer's life is in danger, he has every right to use every force in his means to defend himself.

In the old days, they used to put a gun or a knife on somebody after a shooting. Now they don't even bother.

But today, we have cops crying wolf all the time. They testify "I was in fear of my life," the grand jury buys it, the DA winks and nods, and there's no indictment.

I remember a guy I worked with back in the 81st Precinct, an ex-Marine named Murphy. He would not turn out for roll call until his shoes were spit-shined, and his uniform was creased.

One night, he was called to a family dispute. There was a man waiting behind the door, and he came out with a butcher knife and slashed Murphy's face.

Murphy could have emptied his gun in him. Instead, he disarmed the man and put him in cuffs. What's happening today in the performance of some officers can only be described as sheer cowardice. They don't belong in the uniform, and they shouldn't have weapons — whether they're cops or not.

I hear cops saying all the time — and they're proud of it — "shoot first, ask questions later."

They say, "It's my job to get home safe." Yes, but not at the cost of a human being who never posed a threat to you in the first place.

I called for, way back when before the Knapp Commission, for an independent investigative body. When I was testifying about police corruption, I saw very clearly how the DA can lead the grand jury in any direction they so desire.

The people want justice, and they need justice. And the police are supposed to be protecting their civil rights

Why would a kid in the inner city call a cop? When I was growing up, my mother would say "Any problem, call a cop." He would show up and assess the problem, and you wouldn't become the victim.

I want to be clear. I'm not talking about all police. There are plenty of good police, and I hear from them on a daily basis.

But the police are becoming our enemy, and society is becoming the enemy of the police.

Somebody with clear, objective and impartial thinking needs to come to their senses and find a solution.

Corruption-busting former NYPD Detective Frank Serpico, whose exploits were made into a best-selling book and a movie with Al Pacino, retired from the force in 1972 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/serpico-wedge-driven-police-society-article-1.2034651

[japantiger 4,051]

Their parents obviously have too much money if they think this is a good use of tuition.