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

Now that I could probably go with, morally there is a much better case because morality is subjective while the law is a lot more concrete. The department is absolutely going to get sued, and they'll probably win. This case was always one for civil court rather than criminal court.

The argument that he was wrong for using the takedown method he used I could get behind too because he was breaking protocol by doing so....However, that doesn't equate to murder or even manslaughter in the 2nd degree according to NY law.

I really think it sucks that Garner died as a result of his resisting arrest, he didn't "deserve to die", but as a career criminal, he knew better than to resist arrest. He wasn't some first timer who didn't know that cops would react that way if you wouldn't let them cuff you....he might have even had a situation similar to that play out in a previous arrest or in jail. You simply can't get around the fact that Garner essentially caused what happened to him, and it's a really safe assumption that he knew it would happen given his record.

 

I didn't think that showing you the light would affect you in the least. You are comfortable in your ignorance and that's how you want to remain, I'll respect your wishes but if you happen to change your mind and want out of the cave, all you have to do is look up 3 parts of the NY penal code and you'll have your freedom.

Section 15.05

Section 35.30

Section 125.15

All i can do is give you the tools to free yourself from the cave of ignorance, I can't do it for you.

Yeah, I can understand that, on some cases being from Texas biases me as well such as when someone shoots intruders breaking in to their home in stupid parts of the country where that is illegal.

Absolutely a lot of these cases are confirmation bias, to a race baiter, racism is everywhere.

 

Crimnal case = NO, Civil case + YES... Check

Murder = NO, Manslaughter = Possible YES... Check

Odd s this guy didn't know how cops react after 30+ prior charges... ZERO. He was most definitely a dumbass for not cooperating. His culpability here is not questionable in my mind - he is certainly responsible for his own death to an extent due to the multiple poor decisions he made. But that doesn't absolve everyone else - mostly the Department and the State that puts cops in the position of arresting guys like this for petty crimes - of responsibility.

But do ya think the Department or - God Forbid - the politicians running that state will actually change anything? No, they will just wuss down and dumb down the police force until it cannot stop crimes anymore, and then attack them for not being able to stop crimes.

It's as predictable as night and day.

 

I think this is an interesting point. Because with the Eric Garner case, the order to send cops out to essentially arrest him came from a black cop.

It's from this very intriguing article from the Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/eric-garner-was-just-a-number-to-them.html


What I do think is a problem is that cops are more trigger happy with black suspects than white. And probably more tolerant. I don't think that's conscious though, I think it's so indoctrinated into people, both white and black cops, that they do it without thinking or realizing.

And that's the real thing people should focus on. It's not that this cop was racist - there's now way to tell if race consciously affected his decision. But there is a lot around racism that isn't conscious. That's a result of years and years of programing.

How does society fight against that?

 

More non lethal ways to bring down a target that is not compliant?

OC Spray?

 

The sections of the penal code you reference are damning for the Officer. It's your jaded interpretation that prevents you from reaching the conclusion the vast majority of Americans have about the officer - that he should clearly have been indicted.

"Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation

- The officer's actions clearly meet the NY definition of "reckless". We know that the Officer was part of a Department where chokeholds were barred due to the risk of death and major physical injury they were concluded to create. So we know he consciously was aware of the risks of his takedown maneuver. Next we have to ask whether the risks of such degree that they grossly deviate from the standard of conduct a reasonable person would observe in the situation. This is where the officers actions after the initial chokehold come into play.

- Despite Garner ELEVEN times squealing in a clearly muffled voice that he couldn't breathe and despite him being on the ground face down, weaponless surrounded by six police officers (at that point he is absolutely no threat to the officers and is no longer resisting arrest...yet the application of extreme physical force continues) not once does the Officer exercise any sort of common sense and basic humanity by allowing Garner to breathe. There's no rational argument that a reasonable person would have acted in a similar manner. Most reasonable people would believe that if a guy is telling you ELEVEN times he can't breathe that there is an excellent chance he's going to suffocate and possibly die if the source of his constricted breathing isn't removed immediately. The fact that Garner can be heard ELEVEN times is extremely incriminating when it comes to this aspect of the case.

- One of the penal code sections defines the legal reasons an officer can use physical force to arrest suspects. This section states that the officer can use physical force to the extent it is necessary to effect an arrest. Your own posts in this thread, I believe, have postulated that the Officer should have been fired for not using a method like tasing, mace, etc to complete the arrest. It goes beyond reason and into the realm of lunacy to claim that the only method the Officer had of apprehending Garner was to grab him by his neck, throw him down and knee his head into the concrete for ~15 seconds. That argument is garbage. He used techniques that were far more deadly and excessive than necessary to effect the arrest. That's without question and not debatable.

- Now that we have established his behavior was reckless, the central element has been attained for a criminal manslaughter charge in New York. We also know he caused the Officer's death because of the report from the Medical Examiner which sites the lacerations and compression of the neck and chest as the causes of death.

- All the criteria are clearly met here. The dude got off because of the corrupt big government system which allows DA's to protect police officers clearly in the wrong. But don't sit here and claim the elements of a crime weren't present. We have the video and we have the law. The law applies despite your concerns about Garner going too McDonald's too much and being "stupid".

 

Garner's reaction to the police surrounding him isn't the most salient element of this incident.

Stuff like that happens every day. Most people aren't smiling and high fiving officers when the officers tell them to get ready to go to jail for selling a cigarette.

The most salient aspect of the case is the Officer's conduct, because it directly led to the death of Garner.

Unless one seriously thinks that a foreseeable negative consequence of being mildly uncooperative with a cop trying to arrest you for a petty crime is winding up dead because your throat gets crushed from a technique banned by your local PD, then focusing on Garner's uncooperative behavior is simply an attempt to deflect attention from the heart and gist of this case.

Garner's uncooperative behavior leads to his evening being spent at the jail 99% of the time, not dead!!

 

They really aren't.

It's not a "jaded interpretation", look I'm merely trying to point out why things happened, why a multiracial group of individuals decided that the case wasn't worthy of trial. It's pretty clear, but let's see your take on it.

Thank you for quoting it, it's very obvious that the officer's actions don't meet this definition.

SMH

So you're alleging that the officer

A. Knew that the man would die or had reason to believe that he would die from the takedown.....which is nuts.

B. That the risk was "unjustifiable" which you wouldn't say if you read the section on justification.

Seriously "extreme physical force" LOL. I guess you've never seen someone be arrested while resisting before, but cops generally get that person in the prone position and don't let them up till they are in cuffs....no matter what they say because people who are resisting arrest lie. I know, I just blew your mind.

Furthermore, when someone can say "I can't breathe" they are lying, they can breathe or they couldn't say "I can't breathe" and saying "I can't breathe" 10 or 11 times takes a ton of oxygen.

Even more, the allegations weren't that he committed a crime when he helped hold the man down while the other cops struggled to get him into cuffs because that's just standard police procedure.

Other than the literally millions of times cops have acted in similar manners when people have resisted arrest...

1. It's not actually incriminating for the reason I pointed out above, if you can say it, then it's not true.

2. Again, look to legal justification, not the layman's definition of the term.

3. The source of his constricted breathing was the man's asthma along with his morbid obesity and the officer's holding him down, there was no "choke hold" at that point and it couldn't be known that he was actually about to die. Again, I know it'll blow your mind, but criminals lie all the time to cops.

Glad you made it around to that because it blows some of your previous arguments out of the water.

Close, but you paraphrased instead of quoted and the exact words are important, here, I'll help.

"may use physical force when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest"

The bolded part is what really matters, it means that it doesn't matter what the NYPD policy is.

That's not the argument at all, and if you had read the law more closely you'd see that the only thing that matters is that the police officer reasonably believed that tackling the much bigger man would be necessary to affect the arrest. The fact that it took so long to get him in cuffs is irrelevant....or rather it speaks to how much he was resisting and how effective his resistance likely would have been if not taken to the ground.

1. We haven't actually established any of that, and neither did the grand jury. We've established that you might not be very good at this.

2. We know that the Medical Examiner listed numerous contributing factors to the man's death, most of which had nothing to do with the officer charged such as morbid obesity, a heart condition, and athsma. Compression of the chest is not really attributable to the officer charged either in that he only took the man down and held his head down, the man's own weight along with the weight of the officers holding his torso down contributed to that.....but then again there wouldn't be a case there either because that's simply police procedure.

Literally none of the criteria are met....which is why the grand jury didn't proceed. The law was clearly on the officer's side, but when you mix and match using legal definitions, paraphrased law, and lay definitions, I could see how you might be confused.

99% of the time when people merely resist arrest they don't die when they are thrown to the ground and cuffed. The officers don't act significantly different, it's that usually people are in better shape than that.

 

You just keep trolling you don't want to get it .

 

This article is very similar to my viewpoint -- I am curious what people think about it, if you have 10 minutes or so to read it and weigh in, please do so:

The Nature of Police, the Role of the Left

Here are a few excerpts to give you a taste:

 

man 2 more police shootings

it seems like every black man that is killed is character is assassinated afterwards to justify his killing. And some of the racist attitudes that exist in America will side with the cop in just about every scenario, people only showed remorse for Eric Garner because they SAW it.

 

All white people should kill themselves, they are now useless to society and must leave the planet. I just hope all of the dumbasses that are wearing the I can't breathe tee shirts will still get the proper help for their breathing problems.........

 

btw i dont think all white people are racist.. their are racist in every group.. im not discounting black on black crime, im just saying their is a difference when police officers have a licesnce to kill and not face any consequnces, compared to the average black guy who kills and is looking at 25-to life.. any officer who kills or uses deadly force when it is not required deserves to puncished to the full extent of the law.. body cams and dashmcams should be required as well

here is a video i found that could have easily been another trayvon martin situation

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9_wLTmnKP5I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


notice the cop says your making people nervous walking with your hands in your pocket... if the officer would have killed him( with nobody around he could have lied and said the black guy was fighting him, and he feared for his life) he would have had witnesses who made the original 911 call back up his story. This is scary, all it takes is for someone to call in and that could be the end of that guy or woman.

the thing that saved this guy in my opinion is he had a phone that was recording everything, that cop had a tone like he was looking for something to go down

 

Hey there straw man!

 

The officer that killed Eric Garner said he used a take down technique and not used a choke hold.

 

Do you think the officer would have been forced to use a takedown technique if Garner were a well dressed and polite gentleman who was conducting legal business and did not resist arrest?

 

I think that officer handled it about as correctly as possible considering his obligation to respond to other civilians' calls. He asked very general, non-accusatory questions and actually explained himself and the chain of events very clearly. The phone part was a little passive-aggressive assuming he has a dash cam and could have probably just written a report, but the other guy bringing up "this whole police situation" was a little extraneous as well.

 

After police killed John Crawford at a Walmart, they threatened his girlfriend with jail

 

Lol I saw this last night. Dirty pigs.

 

On Tamir Rice:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Head of Cleveland Police Union: Tamir Rice's shooting was &quot;justified&quot; <a href="http://t.co/Mj98rR8eXe">http://t.co/Mj98rR8eXe</a></p>&mdash; Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/544880458006560768">December 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p>&quot;He wasn't unarmed&quot; - head of Cleveland Patrolman's Union says of Tamir Rice</p>&mdash; Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/544881347748458497">December 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p>Asked what he'd say to black parents worried about their kids, police union prez says: &quot;how about this: listen to police officers' commands&quot;</p>&mdash; Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/544882193244635136">December 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p>&quot;...listen to what we tell you, and just stop... I have kids too and they know how to respect the law..&quot;</p>&mdash; Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/544883482426900480">December 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p>&quot;...the nation needs to realize when we tell you to do something: do it&quot; - Cleveland Patrolman's Union president</p>&mdash; Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery/status/544883590480560129">December 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>