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

They actually did that in 1970's. There is a 30 for 30 about it.

http://grantland.com/features/30-for-30-shorts-robbed/

 

A lot of these police officers are in fear for their life. Cops do die on the job, more so in this country than any other. It's probably going to take stricter gun laws for that to happen but America doesn't want that.

Meh... That's what many of those communities already are.

 

It would be a mix of the wild west and the movie purge. The haves(working class people) would have to protect their house and family. The have nots(typical obama voters) would kill each other and starve. The obvious fact is that these dumbass protesters would be killing each other in the street if the cops weren't there to hold the peace.

 

You try way too hard

 

Man 2 charges would have required the officer to have a reasonable belief that what he was doing would kill him, or for a reasonable person to think that his actions would kill the man. You simply can't make that statement, which is why the grand jury didn't bring back charges, I'm simply trying to explain to you what actually happened.

What's funny is that your example of the drunk driver is specifically brought up in the definition of "recklessly"

He was unaware that such a risk of death was present, and it wasn't because he was drunk, so you can't say that he acted "recklessly" under the law thus we've established he didn't act recklessly AND he was justified in his use of force as per article 35.30 of the NY penal code, thus no case.

You can keep trying to twist things around, but I've just laid out the legal reasons why the grand jury didn't proceed with charges, what actually happened.

 

The police did use a bit more force than they could have. He wasn't cooperating with the arrest but he wasn't getting violent either. The chokehold didn't help but his poor health is what did him in, along with the poor response by ems.
Just am unfortunate situation.

Why are the police busting guys for selling a few cigarettes though? Don't they have bigger fish to fry?

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...-excessive-force-arresting-garner-jack-dunphy

 

Yeah, agreed that's a stupid rule but it's a NY policy. They have like 6 bucks worth of taxes on cigarettes and so there's money to be made by buying cigarettes from an Indian reservation tax free then hustling them on the streets. Stupid government policy creates black markets all the time. it's not a lot different than when people were dying and getting arrested because of Crown Royal during prohibition.

There is absolutely an argument that what the guy was doing shouldn't be illegal and that the laws need adjusting, but it still doesn't excuse resisting arrest and someone who had been arrested as many times as that guy should have certainly known better. If he hadn't resisted arrest then everything would be different.

 

BS. He was asleep when the NYPD explained to him the chokehold was banned because it was excessive and placed civilians at a high risk of serious injury or death?

He damn straight was aware. Every cop in NYPD is aware of the inherent safety risk of a move that was banned for a reason.

 

Well you can call BS all you want, but that's EXACTLY what happened. I wasn't making an argument, I was telling you what happened, there's nothing to call BS about.

As to him using the banned takedown tactic, I'm sure that'll come up in the civil suit that will certainly be forthcoming and honestly that's where this case always belonged, civil court, not criminal court.

 

Furthermore, I could very likely produce for you literally tens of thousands of examples of a rear naked choke being applied with no long term physical damage done whatsoever. The cases where a rear naked choke leads to accidental death are minuscule by comparison....yet your argument is that the cop should have known that if he used that tactic, the man would die......such a weak argument that you couldn't even convince a grand jury of it.

 

You are in denial about the system if you think the Grand Jury declining to indict means the guy was innocent.

Why do you think 99.5% of civilians are indicted but something like 5% of police officers are indicted when charged?

There's a blatant conflict of interest in the way police officers are tried in the judicial system. Asking a police department to investigate itself would be akin to asking Enron in the early 2000's to investigate itself.

DA's don't want to prosecute hometown police officers because they rely on these police departments to successfully prosecute the cases that form the basis of their livelihood. That the Grand Jury declined to indict is proof of absolutely nothing when you look at the statistics on how infrequently police officers get convicted of infractions the vast majority of the non-ultra right wing considers seriously objectionable and illegal.

These officers weren't tried because the prosecutors didn't want them to be tried. If a prosecutor wants a suspect tried, he gets his wish 99.99% of the time. This prosecutor didn't even recommend to the Grand Jury that the douchebag officer be tried because he didn't want an indictment. The Grand Jury system as constructed is a rubber stamp for whatever the prosecutor wants. If you don't acknowledge that, you simply aren't very knowledgable about the system.

Go on and cherish these moments while you have them, because change is coming. Just a matter of time BTG.

 

Everyone says it is a choke hold. It wasn't. It was a take-down move. If it were a chokehold, his other arm would not have been UNDER the arm.

There is no official un-armed tactic being taught called the Choke Hold. It is called the LVNR, or Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint. It is specifically designed not to restrict breathing, but rather blood flow to the head, where upon the suspect will pass out.

To do it, you place on arm around the neck, with the windpipe in the crook of your elbow, which protects the windpipe. You then bring the other hand up from behind, clasping hands, and apply pressure to both sides of the neck. Blood flow is stopped, suspect passes out. If the suspect is in decent physical condition (no blood pressure problems, heart problems, blood clot problems) then the move is very safe, and effective.

That officer looks to be in pretty good shape. If he HAD been applying MAX pressure on the hold, I promise you, the suspect would not have been laying on the ground saying he couldn't breath. (I think it has been mentioned, if you can SAY you can't breath, you obviously can) The windpipe isn't hard to crush. It wasn't crushed.

You see in the video, the officer had one arm around the neck, but the other arm is UNDER the arm of the suspect. He is trying to control the suspect to the ground, without injury. Unfortunately, the officer is too short, or suspect too tall, so he could not get the arm all the way around the neck, to control it properly.

 

When is a homicide not a homicide?

http://time.com/3618279/eric-garner-chokehold-crime-staten-island-daniel-pantaleo/

 

I've never said that his innocence is tied to the grand jury, he's innocent because of the laws on the books, and I've quoted them numerous times.

You, and many others, are speaking out of emotion and ignorance, if you spent the time to look at the actual laws on the books, and the definitions they use, you would see that there was no criminal case here.

 

This is completely twisting the argument.

What the vast majority of fair-minded folks want is not the anarchy which may ensue without any police force whatsoever but restraint on the latitude and power many police in America feel they have along with increased accountability for the police force.

It boils down to big government vs. limited government. Those who support the NYPD's actions are on the side of big government. But the majority of this country favors limited government when it comes to social issues such as criminal justice. Society doesn't benefit from out of control cops who have itchy triggers, particularly itchy when suspects are of a colored skin.

Going after a dude selling cigarettes and placing him in a chokehold when he argues with you is big government overreach at its worst.

 

Actually that's completely twisting the argument, this is simply about law.

 

If the officer would have shoved him with his pinky finger and he fell down and cracked his skull on the ground, it would be a homicide.

 

EXACTLY.

I hope people will read the article; the meanings of "homicide" are vastly different between that of the law and that of the medical examiner.

I didn't know this and I suspect that many/most here don't either.

Between the poor man not really being in a choke hold and folks running wild with the usage of the term homicide, this tragedy is not being taken for what it is.