https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...741169001/

Quote:The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer over the death of Eric Garner during a chaotic arrest that ignited nationwide protests five years ago.

The decision, described by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly, marks the end of a civil rights probe into an episode that helped turn a national spotlight on how police officers use force against minorities.

(07-16-2019 09:15 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...741169001/

Quote:The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer over the death of Eric Garner during a chaotic arrest that ignited nationwide protests five years ago.
The decision, described by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly, marks the end of a civil rights probe into an episode that helped turn a national spotlight on how police officers use force against minorities.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I disagree strongly with this result.

(07-16-2019 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:15 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...741169001/

Quote:The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer over the death of Eric Garner during a chaotic arrest that ignited nationwide protests five years ago.
The decision, described by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly, marks the end of a civil rights probe into an episode that helped turn a national spotlight on how police officers use force against minorities.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I disagree strongly with this result.

Why exactly?

(07-16-2019 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:15 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...741169001/

Quote:The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer over the death of Eric Garner during a chaotic arrest that ignited nationwide protests five years ago.
The decision, described by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly, marks the end of a civil rights probe into an episode that helped turn a national spotlight on how police officers use force against minorities.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I disagree strongly with this result.

Interested to read your reasoning (hopefully based in fact) why you disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Number one, although probably irrelevant, is that the arrest seemed an excessive response to a trumped-up charge.

Number two, it is highly unlikely that the level of force exerted was necessary or appropriate in the circumstances.

Number three, IIRC there were some violations of established procedures during the incident.

It's not "murder," but I think a trial should be had on whether or not there was a violation of civil rights (federal charge) and/or heat of the moment manslaughter (state charge). Of all the celebrated cases were law enforcement officers have killed civilians, only the South Carolina case seemed more worthy of prosecution than this one. Fortunately, that one was prosecuted to a guilty verdict. IMO this one should have been litigated as well. I'm not saying I would have voted guilty. That would depend on the evidence. But I do think there was enough to go to trial.

(07-16-2019 07:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Number one, although probably irrelevant, is that the arrest seemed an excessive response to a trumped-up charge.

Number two, it is highly unlikely that the level of force exerted was necessary or appropriate in the circumstances.

Number three, IIRC there were some violations of established procedures during the incident.

It's not "murder," but I think a trial should be had on whether or not there was a violation of civil rights (federal charge) and/or heat of the moment manslaughter (state charge). Of all the celebrated cases were law enforcement officers have killed civilians, only the South Carolina case seemed more worthy of prosecution than this one. Fortunately, that one was prosecuted to a guilty verdict. IMO this one should have been litigated as well. I'm not saying I would have voted guilty. That would depend on the evidence. But I do think there was enough to go to trial.

1. Irrelevant

2. A suspect known to law enforcement because of previous resisting arrest cases was physically resisting arrest.

3. Again, irrelevant.

(07-16-2019 09:35 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 07:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Number one, although probably irrelevant, is that the arrest seemed an excessive response to a trumped-up charge.
Number two, it is highly unlikely that the level of force exerted was necessary or appropriate in the circumstances.
Number three, IIRC there were some violations of established procedures during the incident.
It's not "murder," but I think a trial should be had on whether or not there was a violation of civil rights (federal charge) and/or heat of the moment manslaughter (state charge). Of all the celebrated cases were law enforcement officers have killed civilians, only the South Carolina case seemed more worthy of prosecution than this one. Fortunately, that one was prosecuted to a guilty verdict. IMO this one should have been litigated as well. I'm not saying I would have voted guilty. That would depend on the evidence. But I do think there was enough to go to trial.

1. Irrelevant
2. A suspect known to law enforcement because of previous resisting arrest cases was physically resisting arrest.
3. Again, irrelevant.

I think there's enough there to go to trial. I don't think there was enough in several cases, like Ferguson off the top of my head, but this one I do.

When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

(07-17-2019 08:01 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

And that’s why this case should have gone to trial. Get the facts out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.

(07-17-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:01 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

And that’s why this case should have gone to trial. Get the facts out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.

You think that the Justice Department has the same information that the public does?

(07-17-2019 08:18 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:01 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

And that’s why this case should have gone to trial. Get the facts out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.

You think that the Justice Department has the same information that the public does?

No. I would certainly hope they have more. If there is some information that exhonerates this, it needs to be made public. Trial would do that. Voluntary disclosure would also do that. Without either, this is a result that makes no sense.

(07-17-2019 08:01 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

This is one I think they got wrong.. but we'll never know now, as I remember the video for this and at no time to my recollectoin was Garner ever shown to be resisting arrest (But again, we may not have seen the entire video).

He was slower to move than the cops wanted, but that was it, he (to my memory) never resisted any of the requests of the officers.

(07-17-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:01 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

And that’s why this case should have gone to trial. Get the facts out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.

So a NYPD officer who has already had multiple legal expenses should have to fork over more money to fight a federal case after local and state authorities have already determined there was no crime committed just to make you feel better?

(07-17-2019 09:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:01 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

And that’s why this case should have gone to trial. Get the facts out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.

So a NYPD officer who has already had multiple legal expenses should have to fork over more money to fight a federal case after local and state authorities have already determined there was no crime committed just to make you feel better?

Don't they get lawyers paid for by their union?

(07-17-2019 09:04 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:01 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

This is one I think they got wrong.. but we'll never know now, as I remember the video for this and at no time to my recollectoin was Garner ever shown to be resisting arrest (But again, we may not have seen the entire video).

He was slower to move than the cops wanted, but that was it, he (to my memory) never resisted any of the requests of the officers.

You haven't seen the entire video.

(07-16-2019 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:15 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...741169001/

Quote:The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer over the death of Eric Garner during a chaotic arrest that ignited nationwide protests five years ago.
The decision, described by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly, marks the end of a civil rights probe into an episode that helped turn a national spotlight on how police officers use force against minorities.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I disagree strongly with this result.

Same here. It looked like an extreme display of unnecessary use of force. Im also upset that they were looking to arrest someone selling cigarettes on the street. I guess there were no violent criminals afoot that day.

(07-17-2019 11:39 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:15 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...741169001/

Quote:The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer over the death of Eric Garner during a chaotic arrest that ignited nationwide protests five years ago.
The decision, described by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly, marks the end of a civil rights probe into an episode that helped turn a national spotlight on how police officers use force against minorities.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I disagree strongly with this result.

Same here. It looked like an extreme display of unnecessary use of force. Im also upset that they were looking to arrest someone selling cigarettes on the street. I guess there were no violent criminals afoot that day.

I'm not sure what the verdict would be, but it should be decided by a jury, not the Department of Justice.

(07-17-2019 11:45 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:39 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:15 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...741169001/

Quote:The Justice Department will not bring federal charges against a New York City police officer over the death of Eric Garner during a chaotic arrest that ignited nationwide protests five years ago.
The decision, described by a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly, marks the end of a civil rights probe into an episode that helped turn a national spotlight on how police officers use force against minorities.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I disagree strongly with this result.

Same here. It looked like an extreme display of unnecessary use of force. Im also upset that they were looking to arrest someone selling cigarettes on the street. I guess there were no violent criminals afoot that day.

I'm not sure what the verdict would be, but it should be decided by a jury, not the Department of Justice.

If that were the case every single case should go before a jury. That's not the way the American Justice system works. If someone thought they could show a crime had been committed...it would have went to a gran jury That's the way it should be because we are a nation of rules and laws. If everyone being investigated went to trial it would tie up our courts and put a burden of proving you did not commit a crime. Along with thousands of dollars out of your pocket....without the very basics of a crime .

The first step is a review by the department and if they think there is enough there that a crime was committed. A person is charged and the case goes before a gran jury. If indited you go to trial....

This case followed that order

(07-17-2019 09:06 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:01 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:33 PM)king king Wrote:  When a man has law enforcement officers piled on top of him and states over and over again that he cannot breathe until such a time as he stops breathing and dies, that's worthy of having a trial. Say what you want about previous resistance. Past behavior does not give law enforcement the right to lay on someone that states numerous times that they cannot breathe and nor does it give them a pass when that action results in death.

It does if he/she is resisting arrest.

And that’s why this case should have gone to trial. Get the facts out in the open and let the chips fall where they may.

So a NYPD officer who has already had multiple legal expenses should have to fork over more money to fight a federal case after local and state authorities have already determined there was no crime committed just to make you feel better?

Don't they get lawyers paid for by their union?

Irrelevant to the point. It's an unnecessary burden being placed upon someone for something that has already been deemed at multiple levels to not be a crime. A NYPD policy violation? Almost certainly, but not crime.

FYI, the choke hold as applied in the video is a rear naked choke. It functions by cutting off the blood to the brain causing momentary unconsciousness. As applied it does not cut off the airway because the gap created by the elbow is over the portion of neck holding the airway. That's why it's called a "blood choke" and is taught to law enforcement for use when a physical confrontation goes to the ground, especially one where the suspect has a significant size advantage over the officer. While prohibited by NYPD policy it's not illegal.