No Indictment for Eric Garner's Killer

[Scomagia]

Source please?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... r-the-gop/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... with-race/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

Again, are you saying that the Medical Examiner is wrong?

[Occupied Deutschland]

*shrug* I don't accept that noncompliance is resisting arrest.

When it comes to putting cuffs on, the police would disagree

They'd also disagree when they put cuffs on somebody who isn't complying and then charge them with only resisting arrest.
Making for a rather bad logical progression.

[-The West Coast-]

Just because "no indictment" wasn't the ruling YOU wanted in this case and in Darren Wilson's/Mike Brown's case DOES NOT mean that it's incorrect or utterly wrong. YOU just THINK it is. Pay attention to me! I'm edgy!

Fixed.

Yeah following the law and agreeing with the Department of Justice is real edgy, bro.

[MERIZoC]

Fixed.

Yeah following the law and agreeing with the Department of Justice is real edgy, bro.

Nah. Defending an obvious murderer is, though.

[-The West Coast-]

Yeah following the law and agreeing with the Department of Justice is real edgy, bro.

Nah. Defending an obvious murderer is, though.

I defend cops. Not murderers. Cops are legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping.

[Basseemia]

Nah. Defending an obvious murderer is, though.

I defend cops. Not murderers. Cops are legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping.

Not a choke hold in the NYPD.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Nah. Defending an obvious murderer is, though.

I defend cops. Not murderers. Cops are legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping.

And Garner was sure violent.
After all, those cigarettes he was (allegedly, I'm actually unclear on the veracity of this claim) selling may have indirectly contributed to the people who were buying them getting cancer in 30+ years, right?

[-The West Coast-]

I defend cops. Not murderers. Cops are legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping.

And Garner was sure violent.
After all, those cigarettes he was (allegedly, I'm actually unclear on the veracity of this claim) selling may have indirectly contributed to the people who were buying them getting cancer in 30+ years, right?

He resisted arrest and assaulted police officers.

Pretty much the definition of violent. Assaulting an officer of the peace is DEFINITELY a violent act.

[Seangoli]

Anyways, if you're resisting arrest, then you're giving the officer a reason to put you in a headlock. Not to mention Eric Garner had asthma and that's probably what killed him. I doubt the officer knew he had asthma either.

No, it is not. Officers are expected to utilize reasonable force in all situations. This is subjective, but it generally means that you don't use such a level of physical force on a suspect who is not violently resisting. Some amount of force is acceptable, but that does not mean that all force is in every case. Officers are expected to act responsibly when utilizing force in restraining a person.

Further, I highly suggest you read the autopsy report, which states rather clearly that Garner's larynx and throat were crushed, with asphyxiation as the leading cause of death with his Asthma only being a contributing factor. Crushing a peron's throat requires a significant amount of pressure and force to be applied-which indicates that a chokehold most certainly would have been used.

The difference between a headlock and a choke hold is in the placement and level of force utilized. There is no other significant difference as far as what they look like. A choke hold is merely a modified head lock, and it is absolutely fucking clear to anybody who has bothered to glance at the autopsy report that the leading cause of Garner's death was his throat being crushed. His Asthma exasperated it, and likely quickened the process, but through applying pressure to Garner's throat and crushing it the officer's technique was the direct cause of death.

At best this is a case where an officers was not trained properly in the utilization of force. And this does not exonerate him at all.

[Basseemia]

And Garner was sure violent.
After all, those cigarettes he was (allegedly, I'm actually unclear on the veracity of this claim) selling may have indirectly contributed to the people who were buying them getting cancer in 30+ years, right?

He resisted arrest and assaulted police officers.

Pretty much the definition of violent. Assaulting an officer of the peace is DEFINITELY a violent act.

How did he assault the officer?

[The balkens]

Nah. Defending an obvious murderer is, though.

I defend cops. Not murderers. Cops are legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping.

How the fuck was he a violent criminal?

[-The West Coast-]

He resisted arrest and assaulted police officers.

Pretty much the definition of violent. Assaulting an officer of the peace is DEFINITELY a violent act.

How did he assault the officer?

The only reason a Police officer resorts to restraining a suspect is when violence erupts. There would be no reason for a cop or cops to assault and kill him accidentally while arresting him if he was surrendering peacefully.

[MERIZoC]

Nah. Defending an obvious murderer is, though.

I defend cops. Not murderers. Cops are legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping.

So, you're defending a murderer.

[The balkens]

He resisted arrest and assaulted police officers.

Pretty much the definition of violent. Assaulting an officer of the peace is DEFINITELY a violent act.

How did he assault the officer?

Being black.

[-The West Coast-]

I defend cops. Not murderers. Cops are legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping.

So, you're defending a murderer.

A cop isn't a murderer.

[Sevvania]

And Garner was sure violent.
After all, those cigarettes he was (allegedly, I'm actually unclear on the veracity of this claim) selling may have indirectly contributed to the people who were buying them getting cancer in 30+ years, right?

He resisted arrest and assaulted police officers.

Pretty much the definition of violent. Assaulting an officer of the peace is DEFINITELY a violent act.

After telling the police officers, "Get away [garbled] for what? Every time you see me, you want to mess with me. I'm tired of it. It stops today. Why would you...? Everyone standing here will tell you I didn't do nothing. I did not sell nothing. Because everytime you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me [garbled] Selling cigarettes. I'm minding my business, officer, I'm minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time, please just leave me alone." When an attempt to take physical hold Garner was made, he stated, "Don't touch me, please." He was then put in a chokehold from behind by officer Daniel Pantaleo, and the video shows officer Pantaleo using his hands to push Garner's head down into the sidewalk. Once down and surrounded by four officers, Garner is heard to repeatedly state, "I can't breathe". An ambulance was immediately called to the scene and Mr. Garner was transported by EMS to Richmond University Medical Center. He went into cardiac arrest while he was in the vehicle. He was pronounced dead approximately one hour later at the hospital.

The video also showed that police waited seven minutes before giving Garner cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner

[MERIZoC]

How did he assault the officer?

The only reason a Police officer resorts to restraining a suspect is when violence erupts. There would be no reason for a cop or cops to assault and kill him accidentally while arresting him if he was surrendering peacefully.

You do know there's a video, right?

[Basseemia]

How did he assault the officer?

The only reason a Police officer resorts to restraining a suspect is when violence erupts. There would be no reason for a cop or cops to assault and kill him accidentally while arresting him if he was surrendering peacefully.

He was not even violent? Literally all he was doing was continuing to ask why they are trying to arrest him.

[Basseemia]

So, you're defending a murderer.

A cop isn't a murderer.

The man was not a threat, he used illegal force to take him down, then man is now dead.

He is a murderer.

[MERIZoC]

So, you're defending a murderer.

A cop isn't a murderer.

You said to they're "legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping." Garner was not violent. Therefore, it was illegal.

[Rob Halfordia]

While I think that Wilson was just in what he did, this killing is a whole different beast. The man was saying he couldn't breath, but was not allowed to. The officer should be charged with murder, because he knew Garner couldn't breath, but still held on.

[The balkens]

The only reason a Police officer resorts to restraining a suspect is when violence erupts. There would be no reason for a cop or cops to assault and kill him accidentally while arresting him if he was surrendering peacefully.

He was not even violent? Literally all he was doing was continuing to ask why they are trying to arrest him.

Apparently you have no right to ask what the charges against you are anymore. who knew?

[Basseemia]

A cop isn't a murderer.

You said to they're "legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping." Garner was not violent. Therefore, it was illegal.

And even if he was violent, the NYPD prohibits the use of choke holds so it still would have been illegal.

[Soselo]

How terrible that this man wasn't jailed.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Nah. Defending an obvious murderer is, though.

I defend cops. Not murderers. Cops are legally allowed to use lethal force in order to prevent a violent criminal from escaping.

Not in any civilised country, they aren't. Cops should only use lethal force when protection someone else's life directly. The threat of lethal force can be used, but not actual lethal force. Even when a suspected killer is on the loose, the police can't just shoot him. That's proposterous. Remember, these people have not even been tried yet. Who is to pass judgement? The police? Nonsense. This man was not convicted, not tried. He was a suspect. The police are an arm of the law, there to gather evidence and detain suspects. They are not executors, nor are they judges to judge our lives and well-being.