Another officer not indicted

[Derec]

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.

He is a repeat offender. He was already out on bail for selling untaxed cigarettes as well as driving without license and false personation.
Misdemeanor cases over alleged untaxed cigarettes preceded fatal police incident with Eric Garner

Do the police have so much resources that they can crack down on such petty crime like that?

Local business owners complained and the police responded. Quite understandable too. Or should police not respond to reports of criminal activity?

 

[ksen]

Some conservative reaction to Eric Garner's killer not being indicted:

BREAKING: NYPD Officer who Killed Eric Garner NOT Indicted

And now, because the police earn such automatic and unjustified trust in the minds of so many, even on the rare occasion that a cop is actually videotaped, the criminal justice system cannot be trusted to provide effective oversight.

Hands Up, Don’t Choke: Eric Garner Was Killed By Police For No Reason

The grand jury’s decision not to bring any charges against the officer who killed Garner is inexplicable. It defies reason. It makes no sense. Unlike the Michael Brown case, we don’t have to rely on shaky and unreliable testimony from so-called eyewitnesses. We don’t need to review bullet trajectories or forensics. All we have to do is watch the video and believe our own eyes.

. . .

UPDATE: If you’d like additional evidence of my contention that a prosecutor can generally get a grand jury to return whichever outcome the prosecutor wants, check this out:

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — Despite his contention of a frame-up, Ramsey Orta’s testimony didn’t sway a grand jury, which indicted him on weapon charges, stemming from an Aug. 2 arrest, it was revealed in court Friday.

Orta, 22, who filmed an NYPD officer’s fatal chokehold of Eric Garner last month, pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in state Supreme Court, St. George.

That’s right. Less than a month after Garner was killed, the same DA’s office tasked with handling his homicide case just happened to get a grand jury indictment against the man who filmed Garner’s homicide.

Some conservatives get it. Why the ones here don't is a little beyond me.

 

[Sarpedon]

Holy Fuck, even Bill O'Reilly is against this.

Could this actually be the breaking point?

 

[Derec]

It was a combination of two factors, both impairing the vital function known as respiration.

This vital function further impaired by asthma and heart disease.

Again, he was not pronounced dead on the scene. He did not go into cardiac arrest on the scene. He was unconscious but still had vital signs. That is why the EMTs did not initiate CPR.

Or maybe EMTs screwed up?

"being pinned to the ground"??? Is that what you have retained from my deployed efforts to detail what "compressions to the chest" signifies and how it relates to compressive asphyxia?

Better question is - how does that relate to any improper or illegal conduct by the police? He was combative and resisting arrest. He was much bigger than the cops and they had to use force to bring him down.
Had he not resisted none of this would have happened.

"his neck being held"???. Is that what you have retained from my deployed efforts to detail what "compression of the trachea" signifies and how it relates to an air choke hold?

I would like to see the original statements rather than journalistic distillations of it.

The undeniable reality is that Eric Garner, prior to being physically assaulted by several police officers,

Assaulted? Way to prejudge the case!

was standing on a sidewalk, showing no signs of any cardiac symptoms, was breathing without any difficulties, no signs of pain in his left shoulder, left arm or jaw (yes, pain in the left jaw may be a predictor of a heart attack), no signs of pain in his chest or back, no indication of such symptoms by observing his range of motion and overall demeanor on the video.

How do you know he didn't feel any pain? Maybe that's why he was so hostile and combative in the first place?

Further reality being that he was subjected to TWO uses of physical force which both contributed to his death.

Force was necessary to subdue him because he was resisting arrest. Police use overwhelming force to minimize danger of injury to themselves and the suspect. Unfortunately it led to Garner's death in this case.

Has the official autopsy been released anyway?

Do you ever do your own research?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

 

[ksen]

Holy Fuck, even Bill O'Reilly is against this.

Could this actually be the breaking point?

I heard Glenn Beck on the way to work this morning and he's against it too.

It might be the breaking point.

 

[Derec]

Some conservatives get it. Why the ones here don't is a little beyond me.

It is only progressives that have to toe the same party line on all issues or fear the wrath of the politburo. Just look at the disdain progressives have for people like Mary Landrieu because she dares being in favor of KXL.

That said, I think the reason some conservatives support Garner is that they hate taxes and he stuck it to the tax man by illegally selling untaxed cigarettes.

 

[RavenSky]

Some conservatives get it. Why the ones here don't is a little beyond me.

It is only progressives that have to toe the same party line on all issues or fear the wrath of the politburo.

That said, I think the reason some conservatives support Garner is that they hate taxes and he stuck it to the tax man by illegally selling untaxed cigarettes.

oh horseshit. Seriously dude, sometimes you really just need to stop talking.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

I proposed a system on page 3, but it got lost in the debate on whether cops can actually commit crimes in the first place.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is only progressives that have to toe the same party line on all issues or fear the wrath of the politburo.

That said, I think the reason some conservatives support Garner is that they hate taxes and he stuck it to the tax man by illegally selling untaxed cigarettes.

oh horseshit. Seriously dude, sometimes you really just need to stop talking.

No, let him rant. The Politburo has decreed it.

 

[ksen]

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.

I proposed a system on page 3, but it got lost in the debate on whether cops can actually commit crimes in the first place.

I saw that and forget to respond to it. The Citizen Review Board is a good idea. Whatever we're doing right now is obviously not working. Violent crime rates are dropping, the number of police that die violently in the line of duty is the lowest it's been in decades, and yet 1000s of civilians a year are dying at the hands of cops and hardly any police officers are indicted.

This is not how a first world country is supposed to operate.

 

[Sarpedon]

I remember.

I am still going to write my reps about it.

Still not composed.

 

[Axulus]

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.

I'm just talking about it from the standpoint of who cares that he wasn't indicted, he didn't have a chance in hell of getting convicted (obviously a jury without a full blown defense didn't even find probable cause, even if you think the prosecutor did a half assed job, of which no one has provided any evidence for whatsoever). Is it just because people enjoy show trials and wasting taxpayer money that will lead to only one outcome: aquittal?

 

[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.

I'm just talking about it from the standpoint of who cares that he wasn't indicted,

I care that he wasn't indicted so you're not talking from my standpoint.

he didn't have a chance in hell of getting convicted

Unless you can see the future you don't know that.

(obviously a jury without a full blown defense didn't even find probable cause, even if you think the prosecutor did a half assed job, of which no one has provided any evidence for whatsoever).

No one is able to provide evidence yet because no grand jury material has been released yet. So you also have no idea if the prosecutor acted as a defense attorney or grossly overreached on what charges he was trying to get an indictment on.

You may still be comfortable giving the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt but I am past that stage right now.

Is it just because people enjoy show trials and wasting taxpayer money that will lead to only one outcome: aquittal?

Again, you're just assuming it'd be a show trial. Unless you can see the future you have no idea what kind of trial there would be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Felony murder only applies to deaths from a felony, not merely any illegal action.

2) Choke holds are not illegal. They're just against department policy.

3) The illegal action has to be the trigger for the death.


In this case the cause of death was a stress-induced heart attack.

Non, Loren it was not. Stop trotting such gross misinformation.

The proper expansion of his thorax was prevented as his torso was in direct contact with the ground with full weight being pushed down and quite forcefully by several officers. It caused what is commonly known as compressive asphyxia. "I cannot breathe" is fully consistent with compressive asphyxia. He was held down with heavy pressure on his torso long enough to lose consciousness and of course generalized hypoxia followed.

Several officers pushing down on him is not a choke hold.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm just talking about it from the standpoint of who cares that he wasn't indicted,

I care that he wasn't indicted so you're not talking from my standpoint.

he didn't have a chance in hell of getting convicted

Unless you can see the future you don't know that.

(obviously a jury without a full blown defense didn't even find probable cause, even if you think the prosecutor did a half assed job, of which no one has provided any evidence for whatsoever).

No one is able to provide evidence yet because no grand jury material has been released yet. So you also have no idea if the prosecutor acted as a defense attorney or grossly overreached on what charges he was trying to get an indictment on.

You may still be comfortable giving the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt but I am past that stage right now.

Is it just because people enjoy show trials and wasting taxpayer money that will lead to only one outcome: aquittal?

Again, you're just assuming it'd be a show trial. Unless you can see the future you have no idea what kind of trial there would be.

Unfortunately in this case I have to agree with Axulus. If the prosecutor through the grand jury proceeding, you don't think s/he'd also throw a criminal trial? Look what Angela Cory did regarding Trayvon Martin's killing. Sure, we got a trial... a trial she had no intention of winning. Put of how she did it was with erroneous jury instructions - exactly what the prosecutor in Michael Brown's grand jury proceeding did too.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Loren, how far would an officer have to go to earn your condemnation?

And how is your position regarding the police somehow libertarian?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Felony murder only applies to deaths from a felony, not merely any illegal action.

2) Choke holds are not illegal. They're just against department policy.

3) The illegal action has to be the trigger for the death.


In this case the cause of death was a stress-induced heart attack. Was the hold the cause of that stress? Or the scuffle in general? To get a felony murder conviction you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the hold that caused the heart attack. Since that's an impossible burden...

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.

And how did the chokehold cause the chest compression that was the problem??

This guy died because it took a bunch of officers to subdue him, not because of a chokehold.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I proposed a system on page 3, but it got lost in the debate on whether cops can actually commit crimes in the first place.

I saw that and forget to respond to it. The Citizen Review Board is a good idea. Whatever we're doing right now is obviously not working. Violent crime rates are dropping, the number of police that die violently in the line of duty is the lowest it's been in decades, and yet 1000s of civilians a year are dying at the hands of cops and hardly any police officers are indicted.

This is not how a first world country is supposed to operate.

What I wrote wasn't a citizen review board, I stepped it up several notches and broke the monopoly power of public prosecutors to bring criminal charges against those who so desperately deserve them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I wouldn't even say probably. The cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him. I don't see that the chokehold had anything to do with it.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

I wouldn't even say probably. The cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him. I don't see that the chokehold had anything to do with it.

Of course you don't. But I am rather shocked that you admit that the "cause of death appears to be the pile of officers subduing him". So you think all 5 officers should be disciplined or brought up on charges... or are you still going to blame the victim?