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

I agree with you bigtexxx. He shouldn't have resisted arrest but that's no excuse for the police officers to kill him.

 

When you're throwing numbers and statistics around to support your prejudice you should.

How many "what" where black Mr Clutch...?

 

how many of those black people who were shot were unarmed, were shot with their hands up, or shot in the back

 

You're basically asking me a question that I asked him... I'm not the one throwing out blanket statistics. But Google it. I already gave you a specific name with John Crawford (I guess you didn't see that) but there's plenty more black victims like him.

 

The problem with the FID is that the reporting is voluntary - and many major police departments don't report data to it. That's why I said there's no comprehensive data out there. I think I saw somewhere that LA hadn't reported anything to it in 15+ years and maybe all of Florida as well - but I can't find that source offhand. While I don't have evidence of this, common sense would tell us that the departments with the most problems are the ones least likely to report. So it's not just an incomplete database, but likely a biased one too.

The FID is maintained by the CDC. Until Obama's executive order in 2013, the CDC was banned from doing research on gun crimes. I'm not sure if that change would affect this issue and give them more authority to improve the quality of the FID data or not.

The ProPublica analysis, while compressed in its targeted demographics, is more comprehensive in its analysis and data gathering. But I agree it's not complete. It's absurd that we don't have anything resembling a comprehensive tally of the number of people killed by police in the country. It shouldn't be that hard.

 

I did see that but that's not my question, which is what you were asking
Why is it relevant to only ask about white people?

 

His crime was possesion of a fire arm. You gun nuts should be falling all over yourselves to defend him

 

Defend him in saying that what he did shouldn't have been a crime, not defend him in saying that the cops set him up.

 

Well Mr Clutch, because I already know that many black (and Mexican) people have been killed by police in that manner but I hardly ever hear of white people being killed in that manner so that's why I asked the poster how many whites have been killed in that manner. But by all means he can post the statistics for both black and white for your benefit.

 

What you are quoting is not from the relevant section of law, you are reading 35.05 which is general rules, 35.30 is what governs "Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest". The officer was attempting to make an arrest so the justification for his actions is determined by 35.30, not 35.05. At least you quoted law though.

Judging by the fact that a grand jury decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence of a crime as to go to trial, I think it's a pretty defensible position....so long as you actually know the relevant law.

Actually, that's EXACTLY how it works. A grand jury decides if there is any evidence that a crime might have been committed, if they think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that, it goes to trial. When they find that a person's actions were legally justified, and that there is no reason to think a crime was committed, there is no trial.

If an officer gouged out someone's eyes, it would be pretty hard for them to say that they reasonably thought that it was necessary to effect the arrest so it wouldn't be justifiable. If an officer pulled out an illegal gun, it wouldn't be unjustifiable, but they could be charged with having the illegal gun. A choke hold, while against NYPD policy, isn't illegal in and of itself so it's hard to compare that to an illegal gun. I think the guy should be fired for violating NYPD policy, but that's not the same as pinning manslaughter charges on him.

The role of the grand jury is to decide if there is sufficient evidence to think that a crime might have been committed, if they determine that there is no evidence that the officer acted in a legally unjustifiable manner, there's no evidence to suggest a crime might have been committed, thus no trial. Because of how 35.30 is written, it's hard to argue that the officer acted in a legally unjustifiable manner, even though he broke protocol, so it's hard to think that an actual crime happened.

 

The evidence doesn't support that they were shot in that manner so how do you know they were? What you have heard of is the media getting views and clicks when they title a video "black man killed by racist cops".

 

If indeed the medical examiner stated that the choke hold was part of the cause of death then yes the officer should have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter. Race shouldn't matter.

 

Heard...??? What makes you think I haven't witnessed (as I mentioned to AroundTheWorld on the previous page). It's a lot of incidents that happen like this that never gets any media coverage. Especially in small towns outside the city.

 

What makes me think you haven't witnessed many black people who were shot unarmed, with their hands up, or shot in the back? Because you haven't.

You have a problem with the term heard? You said it.

 

There's tons of data out there to show that in cases with identical fact patterns, blacks are prosecuted and arrested and punished at rates significantly higher than whites.

That's the definition of disparate treatment and thus of racism.

 

Any sane, non-racially biased/depraved individual can see from the video that the chokehold was NOT necessary to complete the arrest.

Garner never threatened the cops, had no weapon, wasn't accused of anything resembling a violent offense and never attacked or even touched a police officer. Those facts are beyond dispute.

Given those facts, it was a sickening overreach to resort to a banned chokehold. Not even the best attorney in the world could successfully argue the officer's actions were necessary to complete the arrest process. That's just laughable.

 

This is anonymous message board and I don't 5h1t what you eat so you don't have to believe anything I say. By the way I also said Mexican men in my statement as well _ not just black... But you're stuck on black... Figures.

 

How do you feel about the fact that this guy was a massive bloater and would have been just as likely to die if he tried to do a pushup?

I ask because I ride a motorcycle and often see news that when a fellow motorcyclist is killed. Sometimes the driver (if a car is involved) is charged with manslaughter. I have the moral dilemma, the driver is responsible for the crash, but I'm not sure about the death. It is my choice to ride a motorcycle and that puts me at a much higher risk to die from a negligent driver who wouldn't have killed someone even in a smart car. I don't think they need to share the responsibility of my risk taking.

 

Involuntary manslaughter is covered by article 125.15

The problem here is that you then have to look up the legal term "recklessly" which is defined in 15.05 as

You'd then have to prove that a "reasonable person" would think that taking the man down in that manner would cause him to die or that he was aware that the man would die if he was taken down in that manner. The fluke nature of the man's death pretty much rule that out because most of the time you see someone in a choke hold, you don't assume they are going to later die from complications associated to asthma, heart disease, morbid obesity, and being held down in a prone position.

 

I disagree, he was a LOT bigger than the police, and he was preventing them from cuffing him, how else were they going to get him to the ground and cuffed? Maybe they could have tased him, or beat him with billy clubs, but those small cops were going to struggle to get that man to the ground and any sane person would see that.

The problem with your facts is that they are irrelevant. The cops didn't use deadly force, despite the fact that the man ended up dead as a result of his health conditions, so he didn't have to threaten anyone. He was resisting arrest, and that's pretty much all that matters. Also something that is beyone dispute.

Also what is funny is that you say

Yet that's EXACTLY what the grand jury found to be the case without any lawyer even making an argument for it.

The guy was stupid, now he's dead.

The cop broke protocol and used a banned takedown tactic and should be fired for it.