Cop in Eric Garner's death not indicted

[Smash255]

Hard to tell because of the editing in the video available via the link, but it appears that the cops initially tried to peaceably arrest him and he just plain failed to come peaceably.  Assuming that was the case, then unless it was explicitly against NYPD policy to use chokeholds, I can't see where there anything shown in that video that is actionable.  Might have been something that wasn't in that video that should have led to a charge, but without some other evidence, I can't fault the grand jury here, and I say that as someone who thinks both Wilson and the cops in the Cleveland case should be charged.

If you're black in this country, you better do your damnedest to follow every order the cops bark at you. If you don't they will kill you and face no legal repercussions for it.

Haha, you think that'll protect them? That's cute. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFYTtgZAlE
^^
Guy pulls into gas station, gets out, cop pulls up. The cop tells him to get his license out, and literally as soon as he turns, the cop shoots him. Repeatedly. The guy is screaming that he's shot, the cop handcuffs him on the ground, and then goes about getting his ID from his wallet while the guy is bleeding from his leg. No cares, just another day of police brutality.

Actually the cop in that case has been both fired from his job and has been charged with felony assault and battery "of a high and aggravated nature" and faces up to 20 years if convicted.

Chokehold has been banned since WELL before this officer was on the force.

[Smash255]

I can't wait to hear Reaganfan's comments on this.

What a stupid comment.  If you can't see the horrific difference between this and the Ferguson case ... Well, you're stupid.  This is caught on camera and the cop is BLATANTLY guilty.  I disagreed with the Ferguson decision too, but it's moronic to lump people who defend this (no one I've seen yet...) and those who have doubts about the guilt of Officer Wilson together.  Come on.

As for the OP, wow this is disturbing.  That cop should VERY CLEARLY be criminally charged...

Gramps's comments wasn't based just off Naso (Reagan fan's) comments on Ferguson, but several years worth of his posting as it relates to cops's actions against minorities.

[Smash255]

 In these parts, black and white law enforcement –retired and academy instructors - say the take down of Garner was by the book. Apparently, officers are taught a hold that is on the side of the neck, blocking an artery, causing weakness and blackout so to hand cuff the non-responsive perp. of law enforcement orders. What’s more, the point that petty criminals do lie was confirmed at the point of mass confrontation – a person cannot speak if they cannot breath. It was not a choke hold that killed Garner.

 The Charles Barkley doctrine in the end will unfortunately will also apply here.

I will admit that yes, I do tend to defend police. Not because my father was one, not because I grew up around them, but because nine times out of ten, their story actually is the accurate one. 

t_host1 is correct. What this case was had a heavyset angry male, being taken down by officers so that he could be handcuffed. Tragically, he died during it. It's not different than a comedian telling a joke so funny someone laughs until they have a heart attack. It's sad, but it's not the fault of the comedian who told the joke.

This was clearly a "suspect is down, handcuff him...oh s*it...he's dead." You CAN NOT bring that to a Grand Jury. The video of the trooper at the Gas Station, YES. You can. But this, and Michael Brown and probably the case in Cleveland, the law is most certainly on the side of the police. That's why I defend them.

It's like when someone bitches about getting a speeding ticket. They say, "The cop gave me a ticket because he said I was speeding." You ask, "Where you?" They say, "Yes." Well then what is the problem? There is no issue. You sped, the cop did his job and upheld the law, end of story.

The only thing that I adamantly deny is when you think I'm simply defending the cops because the other person is black. Do you think if Michael Brown did what he did but had white skin and the cop was a black man, do you think I'd be on here crying over Michael Brown? You know me better than that. It has NOTHING to do with race. I'm being honest. Hell, I have no shame, I would tell you if it did.

How the f*** is putting someone in an illegal chokehold even remotely comparable someone telling a funny joke??  Seriously where do you come up with this s***??

[Smash255]

Naso seems to finally have some company.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/peter-king-eric-garner_n_6265748.html

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on Wednesday that if Eric Garner had been healthier, he would not have died after a police officer placed him in a chokehold.

"If he had not had asthma, and a heart condition and was so obese, almost definitely he would not have died from this," King told CNN's Wolf Blitzer during an interview.

Even though video captured Garner saying that he couldn't breathe as officer Daniel Pantaleo placed him in a chokehold and wrestled him to the ground, King said that "police had no reason to know that he was in serious condition."

"The fact is if you can't breathe, you can't talk," King said. "If you've ever seen anyone resisting arrest, I've seen it, and it's been white guys, and they're always saying, 'You're breaking my arm, you're choking me, you're doing this,' police hear this all the time."

And cops always say "STOP RESISTING" when a guy is on the ground and can't move and one cop is making minced meat out of the guys kidneys by kicking him or whacking him with his baton for "resisting".............it's bullsh**t.

My Congressman is a piece of s***, I would expect nothing less out of him.

[Smash255]

Peter King continues to be a hypocrite piece of sh[inks]t.

My Congressman is pure trash.

[Smash255]

Staten Island Dan Donovan did NOT ask for Reckless Endangerment charge

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-commissioner-bill-bratton-defends-de-blasio-article-1.2034559

[Smash255]

Staten Island Dan Donovan did NOT ask for Reckless Endangerment charge

This makes the jury's decision more understandable, but what was the prosecutor thinking here?

He was thinking about protecting the policeman, obviously. Like I said, the real criminal is Dan Donovan.

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something. 

He should have been indicted anyway, but it doesn't change the fact its complete bull s*** that Donovan left off the easiest things to indict him for.

[Smash255]

Peter King represents an Obama district. Hopefully, with this awful comment, he can be replaced by somebody far better.

Maybe if the Democratic Presidential candidate loses in '16 he can be dethroned in '18 or '20 but even then it'd be a long shot at best sadly.

when Mejias lost by a lot in '06 I gave up hope of knocking off King before God does.  as did most local and national Dems.

The district is a bit friendlier now for Dems than it was with the gerrymandered district in 06, but it would still be very difficult.   Richard Schaffer in a Dem wave Presidential year would likely be the Dems best chance of knocking him off.

[Smash255]

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something. 

Considering that the grand jury was drawn from Staten Island residents with some disqualified by the prosecutor, he was surely certain this was no risk.

that doesn't follow.

When an experienced prosecutor does not want to indict, he, in all likelihood, knows how to make sure there is no indictment. We may be safe in assuming that this guy knew what he was doing.

I'm honestly not interested in a deterministic black box response to this question.

When you leave off the most obvious and easiest to prove charge as a potential option for the Grand Jury, it's hard to think otherwise.

[Smash255]

In that case it ran the risk of backfiring if the jury felt strongly like they needed to indict him for something. 

Considering that the grand jury was drawn from Staten Island residents with some disqualified by the prosecutor, he was surely certain this was no risk.

that doesn't follow.

When an experienced prosecutor does not want to indict, he, in all likelihood, knows how to make sure there is no indictment. We may be safe in assuming that this guy knew what he was doing.

I'm honestly not interested in a deterministic black box response to this question.

When you leave off the most obvious and easiest to prove charge as a potential option for the Grand Jury, it's hard to think otherwise.

Otherwise than what?  He can stack the deck in favor of no indictment, that doesn't mean he can guarantee it.

Guarantee it? Perhaps not, but he can certainly stack the deck in what charges he makes available and how the case is tried.  The fact that Donovan left off the most obvious charge speaks volumes of his intentions.