Eric Garner, Conservatives, and Video Tape.

[AthenaAwakened]

"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," wrote Sean Davis at The Federalist. "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."

"This is one of those moments where left and right could unite. Few seem comfortable with this outcome," Noah Rothman of HotAir.com wrote on Twitter. He elaborated in a post on the website.

"Here’s hoping that something constructive comes from this horrible incident in which there are no heroes," he wrote. "Unless aggrieved partisans start valuing reform and compromise over point-scoring, it will be next to impossible for anything other than stasis and mistrust to arise out of this regrettable event."

Leon H. Wolf on RedState.com wrote: "This decision is really and truly baffling to me, and infuriating besides. I understand the vast majority of cops are good at their jobs and conscientious about protecting the civil rights of citizens. But there are without a doubt bad cops who make bad decisions and when they do so from a position of authority the damage they can do is exponentially worse."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/eric-garner-conservatives-chokehold_n_6264886.html

The seamless system seems to be not so seamless anymore.

When Charles Krauthammer can see the verdict is wrong, you know you have reached a level of injustice seldom seen in the galaxy.

 

[Rhea]

I am absolutely dumbfounded by this decision. I cannot comprehend what those jurors were thinking, or what they could have seen to make them think nothing wrong happened here.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I know exactly what they were thinking. It comes to four things:

1) Garner disobeyed the officer and resisted arrest. That behavior must not be encouraged, and criminals should not be lead to think that the police have to use restraint in dealing with their resistance.
2) Garner was a really big guy and the officers probably feared for their safety. The safety of police officers supersedes all other considerations.
3) Garner was speaking and acting in a belligerent way; he had a prior criminal history for doing exactly what he was just confronted doing, which is further sign of his belligerence.
4) Returning an indictment would undermine public trust in the police officers and expose Our Hard Working Men in Uniform to undue scrutiny and hardship. Choosing NOT to indict will send a message to the community that belligerence towards police officers is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Or to summarize:
Because they are aspiring fascists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know exactly what they were thinking. It comes to four things:

1) Garner disobeyed the officer and resisted arrest. That behavior must not be encouraged, and criminals should not be lead to think that the police have to use restraint in dealing with their resistance.
2) Garner was a really big guy and the officers probably feared for their safety. The safety of police officers supersedes all other considerations.
3) Garner was speaking and acting in a belligerent way; he had a prior criminal history for doing exactly what he was just confronted doing, which is further sign of his belligerence.
4) Returning an indictment would undermine public trust in the police officers and expose Our Hard Working Men in Uniform to undue scrutiny and hardship. Choosing NOT to indict will send a message to the community that belligerence towards police officers is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Or to summarize:
Because they are aspiring fascists.

How about #5--because it looks like the guy died from the officers piling on him to subdue him, not from the chokehold.

 

[laughing dog]

I know exactly what they were thinking. It comes to four things:

1) Garner disobeyed the officer and resisted arrest. That behavior must not be encouraged, and criminals should not be lead to think that the police have to use restraint in dealing with their resistance.
2) Garner was a really big guy and the officers probably feared for their safety. The safety of police officers supersedes all other considerations.
3) Garner was speaking and acting in a belligerent way; he had a prior criminal history for doing exactly what he was just confronted doing, which is further sign of his belligerence.
4) Returning an indictment would undermine public trust in the police officers and expose Our Hard Working Men in Uniform to undue scrutiny and hardship. Choosing NOT to indict will send a message to the community that belligerence towards police officers is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Or to summarize:
Because they are aspiring fascists.

How about #5--because it looks like the guy died from the officers piling on him to subdue him, not from the chokehold.

Yeah, that must be it. Because that makes all the difference in the world. I think you just provided evidence for the bolded conclusion.

 

[Trausti]

I know exactly what they were thinking. It comes to four things:

1) Garner disobeyed the officer and resisted arrest. That behavior must not be encouraged, and criminals should not be lead to think that the police have to use restraint in dealing with their resistance.
2) Garner was a really big guy and the officers probably feared for their safety. The safety of police officers supersedes all other considerations.
3) Garner was speaking and acting in a belligerent way; he had a prior criminal history for doing exactly what he was just confronted doing, which is further sign of his belligerence.
4) Returning an indictment would undermine public trust in the police officers and expose Our Hard Working Men in Uniform to undue scrutiny and hardship. Choosing NOT to indict will send a message to the community that belligerence towards police officers is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Or to summarize:
Because they are aspiring fascists.

How about #5--because it looks like the guy died from the officers piling on him to subdue him, not from the chokehold.

Ditto. There seems to be a disconnect between what we see on the video and what the grand jury was actually charged to do. The grand jury's consideration was solely for the this one officer. Yet, exasperation of the non-indictment covers the conduct of all the police officers involved and the disinterested EMTs. I'd agree that taken together, Garner was mistreated. This will make pretty good civil case, but not a criminal one.