Police chokehold on man ruled a homicide

[CosmicCowboy]

at the idiot quoting himself as "proof".

[lefty]

He was neutralized yet he kept chocking him

White coward got cop with microscopic

[Cry Havoc]

at the idiot quoting himself as "proof".

at racism in action, defending a cop to the bone despite how ing obvious it is that he murdered someone.

[Blake]

Fails at reading comprehension. I made it big since apparently you need help.

Dude, you apparently aren't getting the difference between standard operating procedure and law.

But keep strutting. It's funny.

[lefty]

at racism in action, defending a cop to the bone despite how ing obvious it is that he murdered someone.

[Blake]

at racism in action, defending a cop to the bone despite how ing obvious it is that he murdered someone.

i don't see anyone here defending the cop.

U drunk?

[Cry Havoc]

Dude, you apparently aren't getting the difference between standard operating procedure and law.

But keep strutting. It's funny.

If this was SOP, why was the case brought before a grand jury?

[Cry Havoc]

i don't see anyone here defending the cop.

U drunk?

Really? You don't see that?

[CosmicCowboy]

at racism in action, defending a cop to the bone despite how ing obvious it is that he murdered someone.

You sure are stupid.

I'm on record saying the grand jury ed up in my opinion and there should have been a trial on a lesser charge than murder.

[spurraider21]

If this was SOP, why was the case brought before a grand jury?

are you not understanding his argument? like at all?

[Blake]

Really? You don't see that?

Which post? Maybe I missed it.

[Blake]

If this was SOP, why was the case brought before a grand jury?

it was brought before a grand jury because the ME declared homicide. Pretty standard stuff.

Why do you think he hasn't been charged with assault?

[DMC]

Either way, charges should have been filed.

Not according to the members of the grand jury who actually saw all the evidence and heard testimony.

[ohmwrecker]

Not according to the members of the grand jury who actually saw all the evidence and heard testimony.

Neat.

Negligent homicide should have been the charge. The medical examiner ruled homicide and it's very clear that the officer who administered the chokehold is responsible for Garner's death.

[DMC]

Neat.

Negligent homicide should have been the charge. The medical examiner ruled homicide and it's very clear that the officer who administered the chokehold is responsible for Garner's death.

Neat, an entire jury disagrees with you. Neat.

[Creepn]

Neat, an entire jury disagrees with you. Neat.

Yes, that tends to happen with a jury of idiots.

[ohmwrecker]

Neat, an entire jury disagrees with you. Neat.

Are you saying that there will never be a jury's decision that you disagree with, or that if you do disagree, you must be wrong because a jury ruled to the contrary? That seems very strange to me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Neat, an entire jury disagrees with you. Neat.

Who called and presented evidence? The cop's district's attorney did and you really seem to miss the substance of the issue.

[DMC]

Are you saying that there will never be a jury's decision that you disagree with, or that if you do disagree, you must be wrong because a jury ruled to the contrary? That seems very strange to me.

So any time a jury decides against your opinion, and they have more access to testimony and evidence than you have, you think it must be them who are mistaken, not you? Neat.

[DMC]

Who called and presented evidence? The cop's district's attorney did and you really seem to miss the substance of the issue.

The grand jury, which sat for nine weeks, heard from 50 witnesses, including 22 civilians who witnessed some part of the incident, the court order said. The remaining witnesses included police officers, emergency medical personnel and doctors, the order said. Grand jurors also saw four videos, medical records, photographs of the scene, and information about police training and policies, the order said.
"The Grand Jury was instructed on relevant principles of law," the order said, including laws "regarding a police officer's use of physical force in making an arrest." The court did not disclose which charges the grand jury considered.
A prosecutor would have presented a grand jury with a range of possible charges ranging from murder to manslaughter, legal experts say. A grand jury need find only probable cause to indict. But almost every option would require the grand jury to consider the officer's intent, said former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
"Mistakes by police officers get them fired. It's only willful or harmful intent that gets them charged," Levenson said. "The big issue here is not so much what happened. The big issue is what was going on in the officer's mind."


So how much of all this evidence have you seen? Did Wild Cobra fill you in?

[ohmwrecker]

So any time a jury decides against your opinion, and they have more access to testimony and evidence than you have, you think it must be them who are mistaken, not you? Neat.

Not necessarily, but you didn't answer my question.

[Blake]

Neat.

Negligent homicide should have been the charge. The medical examiner ruled homicide and it's very clear that the officer who administered the chokehold is responsible for Garner's death.

I'm a gonna disagree.

The main issues for me are 1) Garner resisted arrest 2) Pantaleo's intent was clearly to subdue and arrest
The laws in NY are favorable to cops in this situation.

Should the laws change? Maybe. Seems like there's got to be a better way to arrest someone resisting.

But as it is, I don't see how he gets charged or at worst, convicted with anything.

[ohmwrecker]

I'm a gonna disagree.

The main issues for me are 1) Garner resisted arrest 2) Pantaleo's intent was clearly to subdue and arrest
The laws in NY are favorable to cops in this situation.

Should the laws change? Maybe. Seems like there's got to be a better way to arrest someone resisting.

But as it is, I don't see how he gets charged or at worst, convicted with anything.

Yeah, I get all that, but the truth remains that Garner is dead as a direct result of Pantaleo's actions. For selling cigarettes? There's just no getting around that... at least for me anyway.

[Blake]

Yeah, I get all that, but the truth remains that Garner is dead as a direct result of Pantaleo's actions. For selling cigarettes? There's just no getting around that... at least for me anyway.

I think the family will win a wrongful death civil suit since department policy was broken.

but the question is should he be held criminally accountable for this?

for me, it still comes back to Garner resisting arrest. How do you non-forcibly arrest someone trying to resist?

[ohmwrecker]

I think the family will win a wrongful death civil suit since department policy was broken.

but the question is should he be held criminally accountable for this?

for me, it still comes back to Garner resisting arrest. How do you non-forcibly arrest someone trying to resist?

It seemed excessive for the amount of resisting Garner was putting up. The man was obviously in poor health. It's not like he was going to make a run for it or anything. I understand that, as an officer, you want to defuse the situation as quickly as possible, but hopping on the man's back and choking him out seems really excessive. It's tough. I don't have an alternative, but I'm also not a trained peace officer.