I guess it is OPEN SEASON to kill black men in America...no one seems to care.

The police have a right to respond to a complaint and arrest someone for breaking the law. That is the whole idea here. If a cop tells you that you have broken the law than they can arrest you. That's what they tried to do here. The cop should have handled it differently but that does not mean they committed murder.

Race did play an issue in my opinion but it can not be proven. We live in a country where proof is required. I don't think a jury would have been able to convict the cop. It's a tragic incidence but our laws are meant designed the way they are for a reason.

 

The death in this case could have been avoided if not for an illegal procedure.

A DUI death could be avoided if not for doing something illegal.

You seem to just completely ignore the FACT that Chokeholds are NOT PREMITED by the NYPD. If Punching were outlawed and he were punched what would you say? He didn't punch him, he tickled him with his fist?

 

Are you a mind reader? How do you know that they would have acted differently if a fat white/Asian/Eskimo guy had aggressively resisted arrest?

And no, legally it is absolutely not murder. As I said before, I would think an indictment and trial for manslaughter would make sense. Do you understand the legal difference between manslaughter and murder (the basics)?

 

Not surprisingly, like Ferguson, the cop here was put on the stand to tell his own story, with no cross examination of any sort. That is never allowed in a grand jury, for good reason. That's all you need to know about the purpose of both of these grand juries, from the prosecutor's perspective.

 

This case is far more disturbing than the Ferguson case for a variety of reasons. Why I can accept that Officer Panteleo didn't intend to kill Garner the technique he uses was banned for a reason. For him to use that technique and the resultant death of Garner shows at the minimum negligence on the part of the officer. For those who say that this shouldn't be considered a possible crime because Panteleo didn't intend to kill Garner that ignores that crimes are frequently happen without intent but because of recklessness and neglect. For example if someone drives recklessly and gets into an accident that kills someone the excuse that they didn't intend to kill isn't going to hold when it was their own actions caused to that death.

I can agree that Officer Pantaleo shouldn't have been tried for murder but his reckless disregard for the NYPD's own rules resulting in death should be grounds for manslaughter.

As for the specific technique that officer Pantaleo uses I teach and have used that technique in Judo and Jujitsu. In Judo it is called Kata Hajime (single wing choke) and sometimes referred to as a half-Nelson.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/e52WYHZClGw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Those of you who are saying that because Garner is saying "he can't breathe" means that it isn't that serious or that it was only on for 14 seconds don't really understand how this choke is working or how dangerous this technique truly is. First off the goal of this technique isn't to cut off the air supply to the body but to cut off the blood supply to the brain. The other part of this technique is that it is applying pressure on the neck to create pain and further the cutting off of blood to the brain. In Judo we apply this choke often using the lapel of our uniform limiting how much downward neck pressure that can be applied but in a situation like this where they aren't in Judo Gi the person you have to apply downward neck pressure to put it on. That is very obvious in the video.

It is very clear that Pantaleo is leaning into the back of Garner's neck to maintain the chokehold. Therefore it should be no surprise that the medical examiner ruled that pressure on the back of the neck was one of the causes of death.

As for the amount of time if you've ever been in this type of hold 14 seconds is pretty much an eternity. I've seen people passed out in less than 5 seconds from this technique. 14 seconds of this technique is certainly going to cause damage especially on someone who isn't trained or in the best of shape as Garner.

That brings me up to the next issue of that many also seem to be blaming Garner here by citing how fat and out of shape he is. While that is true that is more reason though why the Officer Pantaleo shouldn't have used that technique. It would be one if Garner had been in a great physical shape but as someone who is clearly obese, if not morbidly so, it should be clear that using such technique would be dangerous. Further this goes to the point of why this technique was banned by the NYPD in the first place. The police deal with a variety of people and it would be one thing if it was like movies where the police dealt with nothing but young strong gangbangers, or ex-special forces guys going rogue, but the reality is that police deal with a lot of different people and since the US is a fat country a lot of fat people who aren't that healthy. While yes Garner was resisting two wrongs here don't make a right. There are 8 officers surrounding one obese guy one would hope that they could've figure out a way to take him down without cause more harm to him and others. Looking at the video it looks like some are. Officer Pantaleo though seemingly decides on his own to take Garner down from behind with a banned technique. I don't see how anyone can see that has anything but reckless and negligent on his part.

Bottomline for me is that this certainly seems like strong enough evidence for at least an indictment.

 

I would love to hear your excuse for the police who killed John Crawford. Thinking like yours is why they can get away with stuff like this and why it will continue.

No I'm not a mind reader but I've been in this country all my life and I pay attention. But if it was a Mexican guy he may would have got the same treatment.

The other cops clearly had Garner's body restrained but the cop continuously smashed his head/neck into the concert when the victim said he couldn't breathe... That's murder. I'm not going to debate on the different degrees of murder especially since the cop wasn't charged with anything anyway... As usual.

 

I find that troubling too. I'm going to change my opinion about something I mentioned in the Ferguson case, that the Ferguson prosecutor didn't follow precedent in the Grand Jury. Based on this case and from what I'm hearing it sounds like he actually did when it comes to possible indictments against police. In these case it sounds like prosecutors will introduce exculpatory evidence and also allow defendant testimony which is something they won't due for cases where the defendant isn't an LE.

While this might be fairer to the police this shows once again that the justice system isn't truly blind and that there is unequal treatment in the eyes of the law.

To borrow from Animal Farm some animals are more equal than others.

 

Murder requires, among other things, an intent to kill. If you put someone in a chokehold for 14 seconds, that is done with the intent to restrain/subdue the person, not to kill the person. It would also not kill an average person. You are simply completely wrong.

I am not saying that the cop acted properly, not at all. But it is most definitely not murder (I am admitted to the New York bar as an attorney.) From the evidence, I would have said it's possibly manslaughter (without going into involuntary/voluntary distinctions). But in dubio pro reo. I think it would have warranted a trial, though.

Don't know if you saw the handicapped guy in a wheelchair that was knocked over by a cop (in the other thread, in the Hangout, about this same case here). That guy was white. If he had been black, from all your posts I have seen, you would be arguing that he was knocked over because he is black. Your reasoning? "I have been paying attention." Stop victimizing yourself. If you don't resist arrest or don't attack a police officer, the likelihood that you will be treated badly goes down significantly, regardless of skin color.

I am not saying that your claim is entirely unfounded. Sadly, there are racists out there (white racists, Asian racists, Hispanic racists and black racists, such as you), and that means that there are racist cops out there, too. But to automatically assume that every misconduct happens because of the race of the person that ended up getting hurt is ridiculous.

As to this case, I consider it a clearer case of police misconduct (which should, in my opinion, have led to an indictment and a trial, based on the evidence I have seen) than the case with the guy who got shot in Ferguson.

 

That nailing it .

 

edwardc -- if Garner had not resisted arrest, he would still be alive today.

bottom line.

lesson to black people who don't want to be killed by police -- don't resist police commands

 

Not only black people. Applies to everyone.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/8yu5O3MZxT0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But I would say even though this guy and his wife are annoying, this is excessive police brutality as well. (Guy is not black, by the way)

 

I'm sorry, but are you high? Do you have the slightest idea of how the legal system works? Do you know the laws, regulations, and procedures surrounding a typical case like this? Because you're vomiting stupidity and misinformation in this thread.

A grand jury is not a verdict of guilt. It is deciding whether the case should go to trial AT ALL. First of all, these juries always indict. The bar for evidence is extremely low. It is, was there possibly guilt in this case? Of roughly 162,000 cases, only 11 (yes ELEVEN) weren't issued indictments in 2010. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs10st.pdf)

Second, the medical examiner RULED THE DEATH A HOMICIDE (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/0...by-police-officer-caused-death-nyc-man-ruled/). So if a state medical examiner ruled the death a homicide, is it possible there was guilt? Is this a question that should be explored through a fact-finding process?

Third, pre-existing conditions DO NOT matter in a legal context when determining guilt or innocence. Could it be a mitigating factor in sentencing? Sure, but the eggshell doctrine is WELL-ESTABLISHED in jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull).

Say what you will about the Ferguson case, but this was an open and shut case. To say otherwise shows a startling amount of ignorance.

 

NO the real bottom line they need o stop profiling and assuming that all Black people are doing something wrong they had no reason to be messing with this guy they had no proof that he was selling anything just minding his own business.

 

Not true.

He was selling untaxed cigarettes one at a time — which is a crime.

 

Regarding the "illegal chokehold" -- while “chokeholds” are banned by NYPD regulation, they’re not illegal under NY state law when used by a cop during a lawful arrest.

Nobody seriously disputes the legitimacy of the arrest. (well except only the most blind and biased folks like edwardc)

 

You would make a good point 'IF' the police officer wasn't using an 'ILLEGAL CHOKE HOLD' that was outlawed by the police force in the 1st place because it could actually kill the 'average person'... By that police officer applying an illegal choke hold _ that's intent. And his fellow officers had Garner restrained but yet he would not let him breathe.

Congrats on passing the bar.

And who are you accusing me of being racist towards sir...?

 

Good thing that guy wasn't black... Because he would have been probably killed and that chick would have went to jail too.

 

You are confusing two things. Just because something is illegal does not mean that this particular police officer had an intent to kill.

By the way, it also does not mean that he had an intent to kill because the other guy was black.

You are constantly inferring things from your own prejudice.

"Probably"? Based on what? What percentage of people who resist arrest die?

You are something else. If you see a video of a black guy getting bad treatment by the police you say "it's because he is black". If you see a video of a white guy getting the same (or worse) treatment as a black guy, you say "if he had been black, it would have been even worse".

You have your mind up without paying attention to the facts, and without looking at the responsibility of the person that provoked the situation in the first place. You only go by skin color. That, Sir, is racist. You are a racist.

 

They had no proof of that when they started messing with him he had just stopped a fight between two other people so stop your madness they were just profiling him.

 

The whole "selling untaxed cigarettes" thing seems like such a minor charge that it makes the brutal way he was subdued even more disproportionate.

What you guys, Remii and edwardc, seem to be saying is that if it had been a white guy, same clothes, exact same behavior, same criminal history, he would have been treated differently. This may or may not be true, and as I said, I don't think your grievance is entirely unfounded, but it's certainly not proven. It's just your assumption.