Another officer not indicted

[Playball40]

Fair enough. It's still the cause of death, though. If you do something that you shouldn't be doing and that action directly leads to somebody's death, that does make you some category of murderer, even if felony murder isn't the correct category.

Maybe it would be better termed involuntary manslaughter. Whatever the correct category is, the officer seems to be clearly guilty of it.

It's not clear though. What would need to be demonstrated is that he would still be alive in the absence of the chokehold. His poor health, bad heart, stress of the situation, and the other officers on top of him compressing his chest may still have been enough to kill him. To get a manslaughter conviction, you have to demonstrate that the choke-hold (apparently not illegal for police to do per NY state law) was the key action that lead to the death that, in its absence, the man would still be alive.

No argument that it would increase his odds for survival, but does it guarantee it?

Seems like hair splitting to me. In 1986, my best friend was killed in a horrific car accident. The car split and my friend was thrown a very long distance. His body and head where damaged beyond repair, however, he ended up face down in a retention pond. Cause of death was drowning. Now you can say the accident didn't cause his death, after all he could have drowned on his own in a retention pond off the interstate. But really? Does anyone actually believe that?

 

[Axulus]

It's not clear though. What would need to be demonstrated is that he would still be alive in the absence of the chokehold. His poor health, bad heart, stress of the situation, and the other officers on top of him compressing his chest may still have been enough to kill him. To get a manslaughter conviction, you have to demonstrate that the choke-hold (apparently not illegal for police to do per NY state law) was the key action that lead to the death that, in its absence, the man would still be alive.

No argument that it would increase his odds for survival, but does it guarantee it?

Seems like hair splitting to me. In 1986, my best friend was killed in a horrific car accident. The car split and my friend was thrown a very long distance. His body and head where damaged beyond repair, however, he ended up face down in a retention pond. Cause of death was drowning. Now you can say the accident didn't cause his death, after all he could have drowned on his own in a retention pond off the interstate. But really? Does anyone actually believe that?

But your scenario passes the "but for" test. But for the car accident (had it not occurred at all), would he not have been killed that day? Almost certainly yes. But for the choke-hold, would Eric Garner still be alive and not have suffered a heart attack? Probably, but not certainly.

 

[ksen]

Axulus, why do you keep talking like beyond reasonable doubt was needed or that prosecutors needed to prove that the chokehold was 100% the cause?

Those are considerations for a trial jury not a grand jury. All a grand jury needs to do is determine if there was probable cause.

You also keep talking about conviction but again, grand juries don't convict anybody.

 

[Derec]

You also keep talking about conviction but again, grand juries don't convict anybody.

That said, while a petit jury needs unanimous consent, only 12 out of 23 grand jurors are needed to return an indictment. Yet the Garner case could not even clear that low (lower than Ferguson where 9 out of 12 were needed) hurdle. Perhaps because the case was so weak and only got this far because of race.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[ksen]

You also keep talking about conviction but again, grand juries don't convict anybody.

That said, while a petit jury needs unanimous consent, only 12 out of 23 grand jurors are needed to return an indictment. Yet the Garner case could not even clear that low (lower than Ferguson where 9 out of 12 were needed) hurdle. Perhaps because the case was so weak and only got this far because of race.

Or perhaps, as I noted in the OP, it's time to find a new system to deal with law officers who may have potentially committed a crime.

You may be ok with police officers killing over 1000 civilians a year, but I'm not.

 

[RavenSky]

You realize that you've just pointed out another way that police officers contributed to this man's death, to the point of being the cause of his death, right? By compressing his chest.

Almost never is a long way from never.

Do you know why people die of asthma attacks? Lack of oxygen. You know what else causes lack of oxygen? Being strangled or having your chest compressed.

Aside from that your logic fails:

If you shoot someone with severe diabetes, someone who is about to enter a diabetic coma, and they die as a result of the gunshot wound, you still killed that person, however unlikely their recovery from diabetic coma (or cancer or insert chronic and often fatal illness here).

If someone jumps out of a 10th story window and you fire a bullet into his brain on his way down and the bullet kills him, you still killed him, even if he intended to kill himself.

And so on.

The officer's treatment of this man resulted in the man's death.

How do you know for sure he wouldn't of had the heart attack in the absence of the choke-hold? I didn't see you demonstrate that. What we are talking about is he would've been alive, beyond reasonable doubt, in the absence of the action. We are talking about the action causing the thing that killed him: the heart attack. In your gunshot example, the cause of death was the gunshot. Without the gunshot, there is no gunshot death (or bleeding death, internal organ damage, etc., the thing that caused the death). Without the choke-hold, there may still have been a heart attack death.

Well by THAT standard, open the prison doors and let out ALL of the murderers held there because EVERYONE is going to die at some point

The man was standing around alive and in no apparent health distress until one police officer jumped on his back and put him in a forbidden choke hold and then four more police jumped on him and pressed him into the ground. We have zero reason to believe - nor have you presented a shred of evidence to cause us to believe - that Eric Garner would have died of a heart attack that day or any day soon thereafter EXCEPT for the actions of these police officers.

By the way - Anthony Baez had asthma. The police officer who put him in a choke hold and killed him still served 6.5 years of a 7.5 year sentence for violating Anthony Baez' civil rights*. That is what I predict will happen to Daniel Pantaleo.

*  In March 1995, a Bronx grand jury indicted Livoti on charges of manslaughter in the second degree. Homicide charges were initially thrown out after an indictment with an incorrect charge was noted. In December 1995, Livoti was reindicted for criminally negligent homicide. Livoti's trial began in September, 1996. He had waived his right to a jury trial and instead opted to have the case heard solely by a judge. In October 1996, Officer Francis Livoti was acquitted by a State Supreme Court Justice. The acquittal was greeted with widespread public outcry and unrest, including claims of revenge... In June 1998, Livoti was convicted in Federal court of violating Anthony Baez’s civil rights, and was sentenced to seven and a half years in federal prison. Livoti was released in April 2005, after serving six and a half years

 

[Derec]

Or perhaps, as I noted in the OP, it's time to find a new system to deal with law officers who may have potentially committed a crime.

Like what? Automatic indictment? Trial by angry mob? Appointment of Al Sharpton as special prosecutor?

You may be ok with police officers killing over 1000 civilians a year, but I'm not.

It depends on the case whether the killing was justified or not.

 

[RavenSky]

One of the bigger outrages that no one seems to be talking about: why is selling untaxed cigarettes an arrestable offence? Give him a ticket and send him on his way. Do the police have so much resources that they can crack down on such petty crime like that? Furthermore, choke-holds initiated in a non-self defense/non lifetreatening situation should be considered excessive force and the penalty similar to physically assaulting someone. Why is it not?

Furthermore, doesn't this constitute filing a fraudulent report?

The NYPD’s internal report prepared right after Garner died didn’t mention a chokehold and insisted he had not been in “great distress.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...d-homicide-medical-examiner-article-1.1888808

This was before they knew a video of the situation had been taken.

I fully agree with you on both of these points

 

[RavenSky]

Seems like hair splitting to me. In 1986, my best friend was killed in a horrific car accident. The car split and my friend was thrown a very long distance. His body and head where damaged beyond repair, however, he ended up face down in a retention pond. Cause of death was drowning. Now you can say the accident didn't cause his death, after all he could have drowned on his own in a retention pond off the interstate. But really? Does anyone actually believe that?

But your scenario passes the "but for" test. But for the car accident (had it not occurred at all), would he not have been killed that day? Almost certainly yes. But for the choke-hold, would Eric Garner still be alive and not have suffered a heart attack? Probably, but not certainly.

Given that you acknowledge Garner would "probably" be alive means that there was probable cause to bring charges against Panteleo. Moreover, by your own "but for" test, Garner would still be alive "but for" these police officers putting him in a choke hold and wrestling him to the street and pressing down on him - over the mere suspicion of selling "loosies"

 

[laughing dog]

No, we are talking about what would've happened if everything else still occurred _except_ the chokehold. It increases his chance of survival, for sure, but does it guarantee his survival?

You are reaching for straws. No one's survival at any given point in time is guaranteed.

"There's a good chance your action caused his death" does not turn into a conviction due to our justice system being such that we would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be wrongly convicted.

But "Beyond a reasonable doubt your action caused his death" should turn into a conviction if someone is indicted.

 

[ksen]

Like what? Automatic indictment? Trial by angry mob? Appointment of Al Sharpton as special prosecutor?

Sure, because those are the only options.

You may be ok with police officers killing over 1000 civilians a year, but I'm not.

It depends on the case whether the killing was justified or not.

That's true, and in my opinion it stretches reason too far to think that over 1000 civilian deaths a year at the hands of the police are all justified.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Okay, that's right Al Sharpton is being interviewed. The Conservatives Rage Machine will be out in full force.

 

[Derec]

Okay, that's right Al Sharpton is being interviewed. The Conservatives Rage Machine will be out in full force.

He is not only being interviewed, he was even invited by Obama to the White House, and not for the first time either.

That racist and anti-semitic son of a bitch should have been shunned way back in the 80s with Tawana Brawley, Crown Heights riot and Freddie Fashion Mart arson. Instead he gets a multimillion dollar M$NBC deal and hangs out with the president.

 

[Derec]

Sure, because those are the only options.

The problem is that lack of indictment was the cause of Ferguson riots as well as Garner protests. The mob is protesting the outcome they disagreed with, not lack of proper procedure. If a special prosecutor declined to indict or had a grand jury return a no bill nothing would have changed in Ferguson.

That's true, and in my opinion it stretches reason too far to think that over 1000 civilian deaths a year at the hands of the police are all justified.

Certainly not, but it can't be that the ones getting the most media play are all racially charged (black people aren't the only ones killed by police, although that's what you'd think looking at the media coverage), all involve criminals and are highly questionable rather than showing clear police misconduct.'
I am sure there are better cases to focus on. So why did Brown and Garner generate so much outrage?

 

[Derec]

By the way - Anthony Baez had asthma. The police officer who put him in a choke hold and killed him still served 6.5 years of a 7.5 year sentence for violating Anthony Baez' civil rights*. That is what I predict will happen to Daniel Pantaleo.

I think that was, like the federal Rodney King case railroading, a ridiculous outcome. The guy had asthma. He violently resisted arrest. Obviously his own actions caused his death. So if you are ill resist arrest against police and your family can get millions. More effective than suicide as life insurance policies have clauses against suicide and you don't even have to pay premiums. As a bonus, you even get a street named after you. I wonder how soon DiBlasio will rename Bay Street Eric Garner Blvd.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Okay, that's right Al Sharpton is being interviewed. The Conservatives Rage Machine will be out in full force.

He is not only being interviewed, he was even invited by Obama to the White House, and not for the first time either.

That racist and anti-semitic son of a bitch should have been shunned way back in the 80s with Tawana Brawley, Crown Heights riot and Freddie Fashion Mart arson. Instead he gets a multimillion dollar M$NBC deal and hangs out with the president.

YES! RIGHT ON CUE!!!!!!
Al Sharpton does not disappoint!

 

[Derec]

The statement above and attributed to the medical examiner has been consistently quoted in several articles. I am surprised it escaped your attention.

Thanks for the link. It seems the ME found a combination of several factors - compression of the neck, compression to the chest as well as underlying medical problems (asthma, heart disease, high blood pressure) all contributed to Garner's death. As such the chokehold played a relatively minor role.

Now, do you need links regarding the use of the terms "thorax" "torso" versus "chest"?

No, but what is notable is that pinning someone to the ground is to my knowledge not against any NYPD procedures.

Do you need links regarding the term "compression" and how " compressions to the chest" relates to compressive asphyxia? Do you need links relating compressive asphyxia to hypoxia and subsequent generalized hypoxia? Do you need links detailing the symptoms of hypoxia step by step ? Such as loss of consciousness ( caused by insufficient O2 saturation of the brain) followed by a rapid deterioration of all tissues and organs to include vital organs such as the heart. Do you need links relating how hypoxia affects the heart?

No, what I need is any statement indicating that being subjected to chest compression as a result of being brought to the ground is a violation of any law or even any NYPD policies. Because if it's not, then you can't really blame the police for it.

Do you need links relating how an air choke hold (versus blood choke hold) will interrupt the air flow via the trachea? Maybe a link confirming that the word "trachea" is an anatomically correct term (medically too) for the lay term "windpipe"?

More relevant would be links showing that
a) what the police officer did constituted a chokehold as defined by NYPD policies as opposed to an allowed form of headlock. Bo Dietl think's it wasn't a real chokehold.

b) To what extent did the chokehold/headlock trigger the heart attack vs. other actions done to Garner, such as pinning him to the ground, which to my knowledge is perfectly fine police practice, or his general stress/agitation.

compressions to the chest and “prone positioning during physical restraint by police”

Was police subjecting a suspect resisting arrest to "prone positioning during physical restraint by police" in any way illegal? That's the issue here. Nobody is disputing that the arrest triggered the cardiac arrest.The question is whether any police officers committed any crimes in the process which is a different question altogether.

P.S.: If you're going to make T-shirts, at least proofread them.

 

[Derec]

Al Sharpton does not disappoint![/SIZE]

It would be like W and David Duke being besties.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Al Sharpton does not disappoint![/SIZE]

It would be like W and David Duke being besties.

Except that David Duke is an avowed and declared white supremacist with a history of holding a white supremacist agenda. Al Sharpton has a history of being accused of being a racist -- typically on only the flimsiest of evidence -- by people who don't like him.

If anything, it would be like W being besties with YOU.