[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I agree with your basic point, but look at the video again.

The so-called "chokehold" was not really a chokehold. It did not cut off Garner's breathing or restrict his carotid artery. In any event, it was released long before Garner lost consciousness. This was a case where an asthmatic, 400-pound, career criminal resisted arrest, had a heart attack during the ensuing struggle, and died. Too bad, but the fault was that of the criminal, not that of the police.

Very interesting. If all this is true, why did the coroner who performed the autopsy classify it as a homicide? Do you suppose the coroner had more information?

[graciegirl]

...

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Very interesting. If all this is true, why did the coroner who performed the autopsy classify it as a homicide? Do you suppose the coroner had more information?

A homicide is a death of a human being due to actions by another human being. A homicide may or may not be a crime. It may be justified (e.g., police using reasonable force to make an arrest) or the result of a noncriminal accident (e.g., an auto accident not involving gross negligence).

Garner's death certainly resulted in part from actions by the police, which he provoked. As the grand jury apparently confirmed and contrary to the media headlines, Garner was clearly NOT choked to death by the police. If he hadn't had the underlying medical conditions and resisted arrest, he would be alive today. The actions of the police were not excessive. Garner died because he weighed 400 pounds, had asthma, had a heart condition, and resisted arrest.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Very interesting. If all this is true, why did the coroner who performed the autopsy classify it as a homicide? Do you suppose the coroner had more information?

" there is a difference between an act that is banned in the NYPD’s rulebook and one that is deemed criminal. “There is no explicit law that criminalizes the use of a chokehold on someone either by a police officer or someone else,” wrote O’Donnell."


Daniel Pantaleo not indicted: Why the NYPD officer wasn’t indicted in the chokehold death of Eric Garner.

"In the aftermath of the verdict, many will likely point to the fact that the coroner's report ruled Garner's death a homicide, and that chokeholds are expressly forbidden by the NYPD. As the New York Daily News pointed out, the autopsy also "determined the victim’s asthma, obesity and high blood pressure were also contributing factors in his death." Some will cite the police claims that Garner was resisting arrest. Others are already contending that body cameras for police are not the answer."

No Indictment In NYPD Eric Garner Chokehold Case - The Atlantic

IT IS THE LAW AND WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS !!!!!!!

The grand juries in both cases are instructed to rule by the LAW.

Sometimes it is not to our liking when the law does not conform to what we want, but it is the law.

Taking down the police and calling race is NOT the way to react in any and all cases. The accusations are just plan outrageous....just as sad as the death of this man who could still be alive had he listened and conformed.

Please be aware the police were there ONLY because BLACK business people in that area called and SPECIFICALLY SAID THIS MAN WAS CHRONICALLY OUTSIDE AND SCARING CUSTOMERS and requested that they come and do something.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Advogado

A homicide is a death of a human being due to actions by another human being. A homicide may or may not be a crime. It may be justified (e.g., police using reasonable force to make an arrest) or the result of a noncriminal accident (e.g., an auto accident not involving gross negligence).

Garner's death certainly resulted in part from actions by the police, which he provoked. As the grand jury apparently confirmed and contrary to the media headlines, Garner was clearly NOT choked to death by the police. If he hadn't had the underlying medical conditions and resisted arrest, he would be alive today. The actions of the police were not excessive. Garner died because he weighed 400 pounds, had asthma, had a heart condition, and resisted arrest.

Eric Garner's cause of death was listed as asphyxiation, not a heart attack. All of the extenuating circumstances of his death will be presented when a federal grand jury is convened next month under the direction of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch. Then Officer Daniel Pantaleo will get his day in court.

[Abby10]

Originally Posted by billethkid

well summarized.
As far as making the critics happy to be fair we would have to discontinue police protection in high crime neighborhoods, not just blacks. The end result would most likely be very similar.

The other statistic that should be published daily for a 3 month period are:

how many whites killed by whites in the last 24 hours? in both white and black neighborhoods.
how many whites killed by blacks in the last 24 hours? in both white and black neighborhoods.
how many blacks killed by blacks in the last 24 hours? in both white and black neighborhoods.
how many blacks killed by whites in the last 24 hours? in both white and black neighborhoods.

Then we can determine if there is a pattern and see if that would help clarify the environment our law enforcement faces.

Also during that 3 month period, maybe weekly, have Sharpton give us his review of what he thinks is happening on an ongoing, daily basis. Let's see if he is as articulate with the day to day reality instead of the strategically selected, isolated case that fits his agenda.

Now what could be more fair.

As for the media they need to go to BOTH the white and black neighborhoods, AWAY from the staged protests and get a cross section commentary from the residents what they think about what is reported above.

I know......too much oxygen in the brain today....eh?

I agree unequivocally with all that you have said. Then the truth would really be told. But, alas, we can only dream it would happen. Instead, I am concerned that if we continue down this path of vilifying policemen in these kinds of situations, we are looking at a society that will degenerate into mass mayhem because their hands will be tied to do anything. Respect today seems to be a four letter word to some people and that is not meant to be racial as I have personally seen the lack of it in more than one race. As many on this forum have already said, a lot of it comes from upbringing or lack thereof, and the breakdown of the traditional family along with the values that many of us were raised with that now seem to be taboo to some.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Eric Garner's cause of death was listed as asphyxiation, not a heart attack. All of the extenuating circumstances of his death will be presented when a federal grand jury is convened next month under the direction of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch. Then Officer Daniel Pantiluna will get his day in court.

Trying to read the tone of this post, but whatever, this case does not address the subject of the thread simply because race had ZERO to do with this incident.

But, it is Germaine as we watch the Sharpton' s of the world make it that way. I am so glad that fewer and fewer people watch this person on TV. His making it about race simply perpetuates this myth about police. The fact that the Sharpton's just flat out LIE to their listeners and those who get riled up does not make it a fact.

I am amazed at the lack,of common sense of people to not dig up facts, instead of simply being taken in by a man who is not only called a charlatan, but has been convicted of things that normal people would not even consider.

This case is not even close to about race. It is insulting to listen to people talk about it as if it were. Speaks to those a followers.

[eweissenbach]

I have seen the Garner tape a number of times now, and I don't see it as a racial issue, but I do see it as excessive force. There were four armed officers surrounding the suspect. He did not appear to be aggressive and was polite. It seems to me that the officers should have tried to talk it out with him, and either get him to move along, or agree to be taken into custody. What was he going to do with four uniformed armed officers on the scene? Not likely he was going to try to fight them. He was not armed, and they should have simply said "for our safety we are going to have to frisk you sir". If at any point he had become aggressive and begun to fight, then use necessary force to subdue, but from what I have seen, the one officer overreacted. Whether he directly caused the mans death I don't know, but I think the whole issue could have been handled with a great deal more finesse and the man would be alive and the officer would not be facing action.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Eric Garner's cause of death was listed as asphyxiation, not a heart attack. All of the extenuating circumstances of his death will be presented when a federal grand jury is convened next month under the direction of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch. Then Officer Daniel Pantaleo will get his day in court.

Nobody said it was a heart attack. Garner died as a result of reasonable force being applied when he resisted arrest. His underlying medical conditions caused that reasonable force to result in his death. A New York grand jury agreed with this analysis.

If the media and politicians like Di Blasio hadn't distorted the matter by falsely describing Garner as a "chokehold victim", the grand jury decision would have been the end of it. Moral of the story: Habitual criminals with serious underlying medical conditions should consider another career path but, if they continue to commit crimes, they should not resist arrest.

As to the probable end of this story: Even if, for political reasons, Holder or his successor con a federal grand jury into issuing an indictment, there is no way in the world that a jury will ever find Officer Pantaleo guilty of a crime. However, the whole episode will probably so demoralize the NYPD that New York City will revert to the crime-infested state of affairs that existed prior to Mayors Gulliani and Bloomberg having the courage to crack down on criminals like Garner--which is probably what the citizens of the city deserve for electing Di Blasio.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Eric Garner's cause of death was listed as asphyxiation, not a heart attack. All of the extenuating circumstances of his death will be presented when a federal grand jury is convened next month under the direction of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch. Then Officer Daniel Pantaleo will get his day in court.

Is there an implication all the extenuating circumstances were not presented?
If yes, why?

The officer did have his day in court.....and that is the objection. Some just do not like the verdict.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Is there an implication all the extenuating circumstances were not presented?
If yes, why?

The officer did have his day in court.....and that is the objection. Some just do not like the verdict.

Grand jury testimony is not a trial. There is no judge. Nobody knows what evidence was presented. It is all done in secret. From what has been reported in the press, no lesser charges were applied for such as manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Officer Pantaleo was not found not guilty. There is no double jeopardy is grand jury testimony. The federal prosecutor can take it to a grand jury as many times as it takes to get a trial.

The state prosecutor who presented this case should resign. If he couldn't get this case bound over for trial, he doesn't deserve the job.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Grand jury testimony is not a trial. There is no judge. Nobody knows what evidence was presented. It is all done in secret. From what has been reported in the press, no lesser charges were applied for such as manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Officer Pantaleo was not found not guilty. There is no double jeopardy is grand jury testimony. The federal prosecutor can take it to a grand jury as many times as it takes to get a trial.

The state prosecutor who presented this case should resign. If he couldn't get this case bound over for trial, he doesn't deserve the job.

What valid information makes you think that?

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Grand jury testimony is not a trial. There is no judge. Nobody knows what evidence was presented. It is all done in secret. From what has been reported in the press, no lesser charges were applied for such as manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Officer Pantaleo was not found not guilty. There is no double jeopardy is grand jury testimony. The federal prosecutor can take it to a grand jury as many times as it takes to get a trial.

The state prosecutor who presented this case should resign. If he couldn't get this case bound over for trial, he doesn't deserve the job.

This is riveting....

First you say "Nobody knows what evidence was presented." and THEN you say "If he couldn't get this case bound over for trial, he doesn't deserve the job."

IF nobody knows what evidence was presented, then WHY are you saying he does no deserve the job....BASED ON WHAT ?

I will repeat once again to you and to Al Sharpton, who is the only other person I have heard make such a remark as yours, we are a nation of LAWS and no law was violated. Was police procedure violated,,,perhaps an time will tell. The man did his job.......TELL US WHAT LAW WAS VIOLATED PLEASE.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

What valid information makes you think that?

Info from Eric Garner

Note the part that says "Grand Jury testimony doesn't decide innocent or guilt, instead only ruling on whether criminal charges in the case are viable".

Any more questions, use the google. There are thousands of articles on the subject. Pick your own valid source.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Info from Eric Garner

Note the part that says "Grand Jury testimony doesn't decide innocent or guilt, instead only ruling on whether criminal charges in the case are viable".

Any more questions, use the google. There are thousands of articles on the subject. Pick your own valid source.

I keep asking you to present ONE PIECE of information to substantiate the BREAKING OF THE LAW ? Not police procedure, not bad practice....

BUT

BREAKING THE LAW which is the reason for a grand jury to meet and vote.

Thanking and hoping that maybe this time you will respond.

I am assuming that you are aware that a LAW must be broken to make charges viable !!!!