Bowsite.com

He resisted arrest. Not legal.

He was taken down by several police officers, one of whom applied a choke hold which, according to the ME, caused Garner's death. Several times Garner was heard telling officers "I can't breathe!"

A Grand Jury failed to indict the policeman.

In my opinion, the Grand Jury was wrong. The policeman probably had no intention of causing Garner's death. But he did, and should be held accountable for it in a court of law.

What say you guys?

I don't see how anyone who has watched the video can disagree.

Choke holds, which are defined as obstructing breathing, are illegal in NY. The medical examiner ruled death by homicide. What is there to discuss?

Why were the other three officers involved offered immunity for their testimony? Something is dangerously broken.

I think it should have gone to trial, so all the facts could have aired in public.

It takes breath to do that!

This cop is guilty....ferguson cop is innocent.

JTV just imagine for a second tough guy that your son or nephew is overweight and committing a minor MAJOR minor offense and he is caught on video being choked out. Now imagine me coming on a website blaming his death on being a fatass....I respect you and you even live down the street from me here in Indiana but don't talk so stupid. This case is very sad!!!!

The easy answer is that if you're a parolee and you do not want to be incarcerated again the DON'T BREAK THE LAW! The other obvious fact that's being overlooked is that if an LEO decides to give you a ticket or arrest you then that die is cast. If you are innocent or feel as though you've gotten a raw deal then TELL IT TO THE JUDGE at that point. Resisting arrest is NOT going to end well for you...ever.

That said, it is a very unfortunate incident that I'm sure no one involved wanted to have end the way it did. I'd really like to see the results of why the grand jurors came to the decision they did.

""But the autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease.

The “Chokehold.” At issue in this case is the so-called “chokehold” used by Pantaleo. Chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD entirely since 1993; chokeholds are typically defined as holds that prevent people from breathing. Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was “choking” Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a “chokehold,” which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.” That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones. So what was Pantaleo doing? He was applying a submission hold, which is not barred by the NYPD, and is designed to deprive the brain of oxygen by stopping blood flow through the arteries. So say the experts on submission holds. It appears that the so-called chokehold was instrumental in triggering Garner’s pre-existing health problems and causing his death, but Garner was not choked to death, as the media seems to maintain. According to Garner’s friends, he “had several health issues: diabetes, sleep apnea, and asthma so severe that he had to quit his job as a horticulturist for the city’s parks department. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting, they said.” ""

Next we will be hearing how the cops should request a criminals health records, then go to a panel of experts on the proper way to take a known felon who is resisting arrest into custody. Criminals need to spend more time watching Bareeta

How do you suggest a 5'10" 160lb officer to take down a 6'4" 380lb resisting criminal with 31 arrests and a known player in an organized crime cigarette smuggling syndicate who ???????

FYI,

""“Garner was setting up shop in front of the local stores and shaking down business owners and patrons as they entered,” says Cardillo.

Garner would use his considerable size to strong arm largely ethnic shopkeepers and was “on the radar” of local law enforcement who had arrested him previously.""

Sound familiar???

There are over $6.00 just in taxes on one pack of cigarettes in NYC! the city is solely responsible for creating the black market.

Now put yourself in his shoes. He gets surrounded and is arguing with the officers then they grab him. He wasn't escalating the situation, he was arguing.

He stated several times he couldn't breath. If 4 officers cant get one unarmed fat guy in cuffs without killing him maybe they should seek other employment.

When I was in school for LE we learned about choke holds and head locks. it is clear that this officer doesn't know technically how to apply one and it was never called for in this instance. He actually got in the way of the 2 officers on his arms.

I almost always side with law enforcement, but just going by the facts that we have been given im thinking had I been on that grand jury I would have voted for an indictment. Remember an indictment isn't a guilty verdict- he still gets his day in court.

michael

From today:

Why we’re not pontificating on Eric Garner tonight

To follow the facts, first you have to know the facts.

It’s very tempting to jump to conclusions in either direction about the Eric Garner Grand Jury non-indictment of one of the arresting police officers.

It would be really, really easy to jump on the “injustice” bandwagon, with a visceral reaction to the video. Or to take the contrarian view because there was, after all, resistance to a lawful arrest. No resistance, no death.

In fact, we’ve gone through multiple drafts trying to sort this out.

But none of them worked because we just don’t know enough about the evidence to determine whether the death of Garner was the result of an unlawful homicide, or just a tragic confluence of resisting arrest, health problems and lawful use of force by police.

I think we’ve done well in the many criminal cases we’ve followed — George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn, Joseph Walker, Michael Brown, Theodore Wafer, Merritt Landry, and others. In fact, I think we’ve done better than well, because we always followed the evidence.

We have the video, or at least one or two of the angles, but we just don’t have enough … yet.

I want to understand this case better. That may take a day, a week, a month, or never.

There are plenty of opinions, but at least for tonight, you won’t find them here.

Based on this fact, it's not all that far fetched to conclude that Garner would have died from being tased also.

Do they really not have anything better to do then harass some dude selling a legal product? are there no drug dealers in nyc anymore?

Eric Garner was not responsible for his death. Though, I do not see a racial component to this story, I do see a systemic regulatory and procedural abuse. And, by that, I do not mean the cops with hands on Mr. Garner. I am addressing the policies that criminalized him and the protocol the cops HAD TO FOLLOW in addressing him.

I wonder how much tax revenue NY stood to gain by the death of Mr. Garner?

A lot less than the 75 million the civil suit may cost them. I have to assume there is more to this than what we have seen.

they will settle out of court for a whole lot less but whatever it is you can bet the farm the taxpayers of NYC will be paying for this one.

Now browns family shouldn't get a dime. he was 100% responsible for his own death.

michael

Turns out that Mayor Bloomie had ordered increased enforcement and crack down on the sales of untaxed tobacco in the city...

And Garner was a known offender with gang ties and had used his size (ala St. Brown):

NYPD Confirms Eric Garner Member of Organized Crime

There are also some articles today explaining what the grand jury had to make their decision. Timing seems to be the driving factor for so much emotion.

So what I am hearing, it is now up to the officers to be the judge and jury, making the decision on what laws should be upheld and those that should not. If offenders do not want to be arrested, the officers shld stand down or bring in a negotiator until the perp is worn out from blather.

Look, its a shame he died but he brought it on himself. He was on parole from his previous 30+ arrests and perhaps that is why he resisted. The police didn't use any more force than was needed to take him down. If Garner ran away he would have had a heart attack and Al Sharpton would be screaming that the cops killed him by chasing a fat man.

The cops were not trying to kill him, they were trying to apprehend him for committing a crime. That is their job. And if Garner had a job and was safely there contributing in some way to society, none of this would have happened. Just sayin'

A normal healthy person would not have died. Period. IMO that is why there was no indictment. The man's health was far far more a factor than what was done to him.

Having seen and heard an arrest or three.... about the time they get the person under control it's pretty rare the person being restrained DOESN'T complain about something, "I can't breath!" "You're breaking my arm!" " I have a bad back!" "The cuffs are too tight!"

Are the officers supposed to address each and every complaint of the person being restrained? Or do they get the situation under control and then address things as necessary?

IMO the grand jury thing was a witch hunt. Throw something against the wall and hope it sticks. The Coroner report that stated the man was murdered was more a political statement than a statement of the facts and evidence. I believe intent plays a huge role in murder, likely manslaughter as well.

The officers were trying to do their job the best they knew how, and try not to be injured by a VERY large person who if in better health would have been quite a handful.

Criminal.... no, not in my opinion. But possibly... no, likely departmental proceedings, internal affairs, etc. as to excessive force, etc. This is far from over for those involved. IMO they used the wrong venue from the start.

I know nothing about any cigarette mobs or gangs. Might be something there, on the face, it looks pretty petty. But I don't know. And it's not for the officers to decide. They are given direction and orders. They need to carry that out as best they can.

Bottom line Mr Garner's health played by far the largest part in his death. And there was no way to know any of that prior to the incident. One thing to arrest a 90lb 80 year old lady, you can clearly see what you are dealing with. (although the ol' gal might just shoot ya...) This man was huge. And very well could have been quite an adversary. Certainly not one to take lightly.

Stupid ridiculous laws are the problem here.

A guy just got killed over cigarettes.

Every person reading this cannot go through there day without breaking a law because there are so many ridiculous laws.

Next time it could be you.

I remember quite a few here that were ready to disobey gun laws that ban guns and call it "self defense" and not "resisting arrest".

Using Bowsnipers logic....

Well you know the law and your not allowed to have a hand gun so you were breaking the law and the cops were just doing their job. You resisted arrest and when you do that ,bad things happen.

See what I mean?

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

And why do people bring up arrest records?...I would like to think that my past would have no bearing on a present crime that's happened or convict me of it.

When I seen this video the thought of what his arrest record was never even entered my mind. I mean do people really think like this?

A cop sees a car driving down the street with a tailight out, so he pulls the car over to inform the driver and as per proceedure he asks for the licence, registration and proof of insurance. The driver refuses so the cop tells him to get out of the car. The driver then tells the cop to go to hell.

What's the cop supposed to do, let him go because it's "only" a tailight?

Garner was no stranger to being arrested...31 times in fact. He KNEW the drill. If he'd simply had complied with what the LEOs told him to do he'd be alive today. Whether it was selling cigarettes, or jaywalking the pint is when a cop tells you to put your hands behind your back YOU DO IT. By that time the negotiating option is off the table and your only option is to tell it to the judge.

Social pressure works. Now you get scolded for driving drunk. Not because of the laws but because people have died from drunk driving.

"Whether it was selling cigarettes, or jaywalking the pint is when a cop tells you to put your hands behind your back YOU DO IT. By that time the negotiating option is off the table and your only option is to tell it to the judge."

I'll remember this if in your time or your kids time that they come to take our guns. And it will happen eventually. Already has in many places for various things.

""Lost in the racial outcry over the decision to not indict white police officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Black petty criminal Eric Garner is the key fact that the attempt to arrest Garner was overseen by a Black female police sergeant.""

On Wednesday, a New York grand jury refused to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of 43-year-old Eric Garner. Pantaleo is white; Garner is black. That one fact meant that the President of the United States and the Mayor of New York City took to the microphones to denounce American racism. President Obama talked about the “concern on the part of too many minority communities that law enforcement is not working with them and dealing with them in a fair way.” De Blasio went further, of course, calling for “action” and suggesting that the incident represented the culmination of “centuries of racism.”

Unlike the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Missouri, there is excellent cause for concern here. But that concern does not mean that facts of the case ought to become irrelevant.

The Case. The incident was caught on tape by a friend of Garner’s, and shows Garner, who weighed some 400 lbs., being confronted by police over distributing unlicensed cigarettes (colloquially called “loosies”). The video shows Garner resisting arrest, although not violently so – he shouts at officers, “Every time you see me you want to arrest me, I’m tired of this, this stops today…I didn’t do nothing…I’m minding my business, officer…” while waving his arms animatedly -- before Pantaleo comes up behind him and places his left arm around Garner’s neck, bringing his right arm up below Garner’s right arm. Garner raises his hands, falling backwards, at which point three other officers physically grab Garner. He falls to the ground, Pantaleo hanging onto his back with his arm still around Garner’s neck. The officers tell Garner to put his hands behind his head, and Garner complains that he cannot breathe. Pantaleo forces Garner’s head to the cement. It is clear that witnesses do not believe Garner has been put in mortal danger.

Garner died a few minutes later.

The autopsy from the medical examiner attributed his death to homicide – meaning death at the hands of another party, not murder, in medical parlance – and stated that he died thanks to “Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.” But the autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease.

The Charges. First off, it is vital to note that nobody knows exactly the charges filed with the grand jury against Pantaleo. According to ABC News, the charges could have included “second-degree manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, felony assault, reckless endangerment.” The charges matter, since each individual charge carries with it requirements for different elements. As Professor Eugene O’Donnell of the John Jay Criminal College of Criminal Justice wrote in The New York Daily News:

As a practical matter — on the basis of past cases — the grand jury would likely indict only if it found malice or some intention to hurt Mr. Garner or that a gross disregard for Mr. Garner’s well-being is what created the tragic ending during this routine arrest. Finding that the officer was careless or that the arrest was bungled will not rise to the level of a crime.

The Arrest. It is vital to separate out the actions of the police from the rationale for their action. That’s because by virtually any logic, it is the height of irresponsibility and depravity for a man to end up dead for selling loose cigarettes. The law that led to this confrontation was pressed forward by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Garner had been arrested some eight times for selling “loosies.” As Lawrence McQuillan reported in The Washington Times:

In January 2014, tough new penalties for selling untaxed cigarettes took effect in New York City. In July, emboldened by the new law, the city’s highest-ranking uniformed cop, Philip Banks, issued an order to crack down on loosie sales days before Garner died.

So in terms of police cracking down on Garner, the real responsibility lies with Bloomberg and NYPD Chief Bill Bratton. Idiot laws lead to meaningless deaths.

The “Chokehold.” At issue in this case is the so-called “chokehold” used by Pantaleo. Chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD entirely since 1993; chokeholds are typically defined as holds that prevent people from breathing. Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was “choking” Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a “chokehold,” which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”

That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner’s windpipe or neck bones.

So what was Pantaleo doing? He was applying a submission hold, which is not barred by the NYPD, and is designed to deprive the brain of oxygen by stopping blood flow through the arteries. So say the experts on submission holds.

It appears that the so-called chokehold was instrumental in triggering Garner’s pre-existing health problems and causing his death, but Garner was not choked to death, as the media seems to maintain. According to Garner’s friends, he “had several health issues: diabetes, sleep apnea, and asthma so severe that he had to quit his job as a horticulturist for the city’s parks department. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting, they said.”

Excessive Force. There is no clear and concise guideline available on excessive force. According to Mark Henriquez, project manager for the National Police Use of Force Database Project at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, only .44 percent of all force complaints were considered excessive from 1994-1998.

So, in deciding whether a grand jury should have indicted Garner, we should assess the following questions:

Was there any intent by the officers to kill Garner? That would certainly be an uphill case to make, as the grand jury likely found. Did the “chokehold” kill Garner, or did his pre-existing health conditions kill him? If Garner had otherwise been healthy, would he have died from use of the “chokehold”?

If not, would use of the “chokehold” have been reckless?

Was the use of the “chokehold” reasonable use of force rather than excessive use of force? Was the “chokehold” necessary to subdue him?

Unfortunately, in situations like the Garner case, our gut tends to overwhelm our assessment of the facts. We are sickened, as we should be, by the idea that a man died over sale of loose cigarettes – which is an indictment of the law, rather than of the police. We are sickened by the fact that a man died while warning officers he could not breathe – but we must assess whether that death was caused by the officers, or intervening medical conditions.

When people’s lives are at stake, it is worthwhile to actually examine those facts, rather than pre-conceived narratives constructed for political gain. And it is worthwhile noting that even if the police did use excessive force against Garner – which, of course, is quite possible – that still does not establish that they did so for racial reasons.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Of course most cops just give a warning ticket (if even that) for a tail light. BUT they also ask you for your licence, registration and proof of insurance. If you refuse that then what should they do? Let you go? Or tell you to step out of the car because now they DEFINATELY have probable cause.

Now, to respond to your smart a$$ question...if the person with the bad tail light has a warrant on him and resists arrest and tries to run the cop over, or assault him with a tire iron then HELL YES he should shoot him. Several times in fact!

If you asked them to get out of their vehicle and they started to give you s..t and not listening to you, what would you do?

Officers have a tough and dangerous job and we should be supporting them better than what we do. Yes, there are a few bad cops but to change the rules of engagement is asking for trouble and putting their lives in danger.

ive been there, and I still feel this one went too far. now if the cop was all alone trying to take the guy down fine, use a headlock if you must, but when there are 5 other cops right there? Also while he is on the ground he still choked him out. what was the point? a good wrist lock on each arm would have had him so tied up he would've been begging for mercy

michael

Is it supposed to be a "fair fight"?

Excessive force possibly, but that is a police matter IMO. I don't see any criminal action, their duty was to restrain him. They showed no intent to injure him, they didn't club him, taz him (which might have killed him as well in his state of health) shoot him, punch him, only attempted to restrain him. A giant him at that. This was no 100 lb heroin addict. IMO for the safety of the officers aggressive overwhelming action was needed.

Nobody wanted to see this man die. Not the police. Not us. Nobody. It's a shame. But IMO the police didn't kill him, they certainly made no attempt to, nor IMO had the intent to. His own poor health did.

Dog - Its not a valid argument to compare this to future gun confiscations. If it ever comes to that, honest law abiding citizens will take whatever actions they choose knowing full well the risks and consequences. THIS incident is about a guy who is a habitual criminal, on the government dole, cheating on taxes, knowingly breaking the law, and resisting arrest who THEN claims he should not suffer the consequences of those actions (including gluttony).

The only relevant gun analogy here, is that Garner's buddy taking this viral video was arrested 3 weeks later for handing an illegal .25cal pistol to a minor at a drug intersection. Birds of a feather...

If a cop is violating someones rights I also think the said person has or should have the right to defend theirself from the attack or assault. BECAUSE that's what it IS when a cop or ANYONE is violating the rights of someone else...That is an assault or attack on an innocent person and they should have the right to defend theirself.

I wasn't trying to be a smart ass. I made a valid point.

"Officers have a tough and dangerous job and we should be supporting them better than what we do."

Hey I'm all for this as long as they will also support OUR RIGHTS. Like all of our rights and not just the rights listed in the bill of rights. I don't see this happen to often though. We can't even get them to keep their word for the first 10 and they are written down on paper!

"THEN claims he should not suffer the consequences of those actions"...lol...I don't hear him complaining.

DeBlasio wanted his tax revenue. That Garner was a black marketeer is of less concern to me than the conditions that criminalized him.

"The law against selling "loosies" isn't what got Garner killed. It's why he was approached. What got him killed is his choice to resist arrest, not to mention his underlying health problems."

Slavery? Gun confiscation?

I think this cig law is ridiculous. This was a voluntary exchange between 2 consenting adults.

Now if he was selling to kids that's a different story...I get that...He may very well have done that too but THAT is also another consequence of stupid laws that stupid politicians put into place that cops unfairly are forced to deal with. I truly don't fault cops so much as the politicians that made the law BUT are there no cops out there with a brain that can think for themselves? Common sense?

The Nazi police are not being remembered as heros today.

Our police will fall into the same category if they don't start using their brain instead of blindly "just following orders".

I like this chick.

It was good the cop was exonerated by the grand jury. It is not reasonable to think an arrest such as that would have killed a man.

Statism is culpable in the man's passing.

Not with the police officers arresting you. You make your point with a superior or on your day in court. Why fight a cop just doing his job? If a Marine doesn't believe in the war he is fighting should he fight his fellow Marines?

Um yea?...Its called freedom or liberty.

The drug war ruins more lives and kills more people as a result then the drugs do by far.

We tried prohibition and learned it doesn't work and it violates our rights as free people.

Mint....Your saying that laws get changed this way? Because I don't think that's true. I know that's not true. When people start resisting laws in big numbers then politicians start noticing.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

Frederick Douglass

That quote is 100% true!

-They are victims of statism, too. Though, on a different end of the spectrum. Specifically, they are the middle class being squeezed between the forces of tyranny and criminality. The former engorging itself on their obedience and the latter feasting on their willingness to acquiesce for the sake of order.

None of this has to be. In a free society, the shop keepers and Garner would be free to compete sans systemic burdens.

Viewed from that perspective, the only entities benefiting from excessively regulated and over-taxed commerce are the state and the criminals willing to risk jail time. The guys trying to live by the rules become suckers.

You know why this don't happen? Because you can buy it in stores...Now if they start taxing the crap out of alcohol like they do the cigs in new York it may start happening.

Also because anyone can make alcohol including teens because its easy. All you need is sugar and yeast.

Next thing you'll be supporting is that sugar and yeast should be sold by prescription only.LOL

Choosing to ignore laws you do not like and risking arrest, is not the same argument as resisting arrest when you get caught ignoring laws you do not like.

Resisting arrest and fighting people with guns (and an obligation to enforce the law) is dangerous.

Look, it doesn't matter WHAT "crime" Garner was suspected of doing. The ONLY thing that matters is that when a police officer tells you to do something it's NOT a suggestion or open for debate. If you refuse they will not/cannot let you walk away. YOU have just elevated this scenario by a HUGE margin and it's NOT going to end well for you because they HAVE TO follow through. The more you resist, the more you will hurt.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

I am done posting for a while. Might go for a CATSCAN. :)

Simple. Go to court and make your case. The LEO's are NOT there to determine your civil rights, they are there for enforcement of the laws. That's their JOB. They are not lawyers and neither are you. If the court agrees with you then you're in the right, and you may even be able to sue them depending on the circumstances.

The stupidest thing in the world to do is to argue with a cop...no, wait, that would be the SECOND stupidest thing in the world to do. The first would be to RESIST an LEO once he's told you to put your hands, up/stop/cease, etc. Now he's committed and you are going to be arrested at best, or physically stressed/dead at worst, but that's up to you and you alone by how stupid you choose to be.

Once again, WHY is this simple concept so hard to understand???

The police are permitted under the law to assure their safety when dealing with a potential criminal, which includes cuffing them. Since several LEO's were there at the time, that suggests they knew who it was, and hence, his arrest record as well.

The FBI, when moving to arrest a known troublemaker, sends in about 20 agents, hoping that the person notices the show of force, and just surrenders, rather than fighting it out.

You may be right even if the court disagrees.

As a patient advocate, if someone tells me they can't breath, I assist in anyway I can.

Victim resists he is at fault. Public servant doesn't assist when told by victim he can't breath, he is also at fault. My $.02

Two wrongs don't make a right. Kindergarten lesson.

When the progressive left make policing politically correct...

And the racist Holder eliminates the power of the police to act...

Amazing the number of local stories seen in the last few days where black criminals seem to seek to be shot or injured by the police while in the commission of a crime.

Anyone know the body count so far in Chicago of black-on-black murder?

Been there, done that. Watts/Compton 1965 or thereabout.

Charlie Manson/ Helter Skelter in 68-69. Ferguson is blown out of scale.

This is what I have learned from the last few years of "news," social media..etc. Blacks run their mouths far too much..they egg white cops on and the stupid "white cops" fall prey to the blacks agenda led by Sharpton, Holder, Jackson, Obama and the like.

I propose this. Cops, take the "Blue Flu" holiday and let the blacks destroy their communities. After all, the blacks don't want justice. They are not willing to come to the table and talk about racial equality and what can be done to narrow the decisiveness of the races..hell no, they want free liquor, free clothes, free groceries etc.

What's wrong with my plan?

This past week I watched a number of videos that showed just what great restraint that the officers displayed nationwide when it came to the abuse from these rioters. I actually had to stop watching any of these because I was hoping that a cop would pepper spray or whack some of the people who were throwing things, shoving and swearing at them.

As a civilian, I wish they had just said, "F--- it" and walked off and let the animals have their way. But then, those in the community whose homes and businesses were saved by their presence, would have lost even more.

The only positive thing for these officers is the accumulated overtime pay they will be getting...another cost to the communities by these obamabots.

Sadly, given the positive status by Obama, Holder, the OPRESS™ and the professional master(race)baiters of the likes of Brown, Garner, Martin, et.al., I have seen more and more stories of black thugs resisting arrest, getting injured and claiming victim status.

Think I posted elsewhere about the (black)guy wasted on drugs who cut his arm busting out a window, resisting arrest and ending up dead. Cops are being blamed by his mom--not the drugs.

Instead of using tanks and grenades...

Absence makes the heart grow fonder...LOL

They may be begging for the police to come back in a weeks time...lol

If the cop had simply written a ticket and handed it to Garner then this would have not happened. God bless, Steve

They didn't , They killed him./

God bless, Steve

They didn't , They killed him./

God bless, Steve

I was caught speeding in my area a couple years ago. The cop stopped me and asked for the usual..I complied and was polite, I was sick and had just come from the Dr. Maybe the cop took pity..I don't know but the point was..I didn't mouth off, act like an ass and I received a written warning. That's it..Just obey the cop.

Again though....It doesn't matter how many times a person was arrested. The only thing that matters is now. Past experiences should have no bearing on this.

Again again...I find it funny that many here would have no problem resisting arrest when it comes to gun laws but have no problem with a guy getting killed for resisting arrest over cigs...LOL...That is funny.

"resisting"...lol....If you call putting your hands up, open hands, no punching or kicking or trying to injure the officers in any way "resisting"...lol...The cops were the aggressor here.

Sixby - Garner's previous arrest record included assault, and grand larceny. Not just a string of minor infractions.

ALL - he was not choked to death. He actually died of cardiac arrest in the ambulance, on the way to the hospital. Pronounced dead an hour later.

KPC asked a really good question on this thread....

"Let's turn the tables here and lets assume that the cop in question had suffered a heart attack and died in the process of trying to apprehend Mr. Garner. Should he be charged for murder?"

Any responses?

- My Grandma, who lived during the last great depression.

I am willing to say that "most" who think the Cop overreacted, have never been forced to apprehend someone resisting, and thus having to engage in hand to hand combat.

And that, my dear folks, is exactly what Cops face daily - physical altercations with those resisting arrest.

If you come up and punch me and I fall flat on my back and have a heart attack,die right after...You murdered me! Had you not punched me I wouldn't have had a heart attack...

I would call that murder.

Cause I was fine until you assaulted me.

Anyone?

The cop was the aggressor here. "who started the fight?"...The cop...

If someone attacks you, you absolutely have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary to protect your life, body.

Murder requires either the intent of either a reckless indifference to the value of human life, or the intent to commit an act that was likely to end a life.

In this case, neither applies. Nor did it apply in the Garner matter, which at worst was a reckless manslaughter, IMO. But the grand jury make a good decision, in erring on the side of not charging, which is how the law should work.

Here's the irony: Had it been upheld, does anyone doubt that the NYPD management would be ordering the cops to arrest folks selling 32 oz cokes?

So someone could shoot anyone and kill them and say "well I was trying to hit him in the foot"...lol

Are you saying this?

I don't doubt that will be happening anyway. If they can get away with killing someone over cigs then soda will be the next thing.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/12/05/Hard-to-Understand-Garner-Death-SaysGeorge-W-Bush

But there can be deaths that do not carry the mens rea of murder. That's why we have a reckless manslaughter law, for example. People die at the hands of others and it is not a murder case.

IF you are attacked, and die as a result, yes, that could be murder. But Garner was not "attacked." Rather, he died as a result of being arrested which is not an "attack" under the law.

If you get in a car wreck while speeding - is it someone else's fault for having dumb speed limit laws, or your own damn fault for knowingly speeding?

I dissagree with you here, Dogsoldier. The Perp started the fight by resisting arrest.

I take it, Dogsoldier, that you have never walked a Shore Patrol beat ( or whatever the Army calls it ), and try to subdue a drunken person who resists arrest, one on one.

It is easy to arm chair quarterback, and have 20-20 hindsight, but unless you have had to grapple with a Perp who resists arrest, you really havn't a clue.

Do you guys remember though the PO who was terminated in Ferguson for losing his cool and saying he was going to kill one of the protestors? We all understand the nasty nature of their job, yet if an officer can lose his cool when they know they are being monitored, what happens on occasion when they are not?

There are young officers, and others that are in the profession for the pure power they are given. Fortunately I don't believe this is even a measurable minority of LEOs; however, I have zero tolerance for the rare ones who do abuse that power. They must be terminated and their brothers must help identify and eliminate them from their profession so the vast majority who do a great job and risk their lives for us are not needlessly tainted by the jerks.

This and an abject belief in zero tolerance are two corrections that would help most citizens get fully behind and support all law agencies, IMHO.

I haven't read anything that said he actually had any cigarettes on him at the time of the take down. Has anyone here read something that stated he had illegal cigarettes in his possession?

I don't understand the loose cig laws for resale in NY. I will say this, if you buy something, you should now own that product and not be subject to paying tax again on something you already paid a tax on to own. I believe that to be a draconian double tax.

Our tax system (draconian in many regards) allows for this in many areas. If they could, the IRS would tax you on anything you resell.

As is often so, these cases that cause debate pitting one side against the other are a result of an underlying systemic cause. When will we learn?

They should have left an opening for him to run and chased him down the street. Then when he keeled over and died folks can complain about how they shouldn't have made him run to get away..... good grief.....

He didn't have sleep apnea and asthma because the fat constricted his throat and lungs, it was only because he was denied a public speaking career that his throat shrunk from lack of professional development.

You will see in my previous post I subtlety acknowledge that was not the case according to the article BowSniper linked.

I haven't defended Garner or Pantaleo. I do condemn the death of anyone over $6 in taxes as unnecessary.

Garner has a long history of apparent relatively petty crime. For that, he is personally responsible, IMO. Pantaleo, smiling and waving to the camera after the arrest, was an immature action on his part and one I regret seeing by anyone in LE. The first time Garner said he couldn't breathe, should have been reason enough for a mature professional to reassess his hold since the perp is no longer an imminent threat to those he was resisting.

It's obvious you and others may disagree. I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

I'm a personal responsibility advocate. Garner paid the ultimate price for his irresponsibility.

Again, "A man that will steal a dime, will steal a horse."

It matters not what amount someone steals, either if it's real objects, money, or tax revenue. A thief is a thief is a theif. Treat them all the same. Lock them up and throw away the key. It is high time we stopped coddling criminals.

"The first time Garner said he couldn't breathe, should have been reason enough for a mature professional to reassess his hold since the perp is no longer and imminent threat to those he was resisting."

Wrong. Never EVER give up control of a Perp, until he has been searched for weapons.

Until the cuffs are on, and the Perp has been searched, all are in grave danger of loosing their life. That is just a plain fact.

Happened in LA a few years ago. Two Detectives were transporting a Perp in cuffs. They did not check the cuffs, or ask the arresting officers if he had been searched. Perp got out of the cuffs, produced a pistol, and killed 4 Los Angelas Police Officers.

I dont care if it is 6 dollars, or 6 million, if the Perp resists arrest, TAKE HIM DOWN HARD !

If the NYPD thought Garner may be armed, why weren't their weapons drawn? Did I miss that in the video? As I watched the video, I didn't perceive anyones life to be in imminent danger. Garner's a bad guy for his criminal history. I said as much. I'm not coddling anyone.

I you really believe a dollar is a horse. You would have to admit (maybe you won't) that there are inconsistencies in application of the law regarding theft. Jon Corzine ring a bell? How about the financial institutions that pay small portions of their ill gotten gains in fines w/o criminal prosecution or any arrest at all? I hope you are calling for the same kind of "take them down hard" justice in that regard. Not that it has anything to do with this case.

Regarding if you can speak, you can breathe. Let me just say that is a myth from a medical standpoint based on my EMT experience. Ask any medical professional how hypoxemia, asthma, COPD or patients with other medical conditions can speak w/o adequate ventilation for survival. Granted, Garner was in bad health. Another contributing factor to his death.

I understand resisting arrest is taking your safety into your own hands. Garner did and he paid for it.

JTV, do you have a link to that forensic evidence? Perhaps I missed it.

Based on how I observed Pantaleo's action during and after, he acted w/ immaturity that makes me wonder about NYPD psych evaluations.

In summary, I think this was an accident that could have been avoided, by BOTH sides in the incident.

God bless, Steve

You're right about one thing - it doesn't really matter - because you're wrong.

Have you ever had to arrest someone?

Have yod ever had to take someone into custody?

If so, have those persons resisted?

If so, what did you do then?

Otherwise, your arm chair quarterbacking and 20-20 hindsight are without textbook knowledge and life experiences.

I will guess that the NYPD followed protocal about drawing their weapons. When a Cop makes a traffic stop, he does not approach a car with his weapon drawn. However, every cop is taught to be ready for the S&it to hit the fan at EVERY traffic stop. Same for Eric Garner. They were ready to draw weapons, but did not feel the need to as they had a number of cops there.

Narlyhorn, I feel that you are smart enough to Google NYPD Weapon protocol, but decided to play the Strawman for whatever personal reasons you have at the moment. I will also guess that you are being overcome with emotions in this matter, having never walked a beat, or had to arrest someone who resists.

Dogsoldier,

You said, "I find it funny that many here would have no problem resisting arrest when it comes to gun laws but have no problem with a guy getting killed for resisting arrest over cigs...LOL...That is funny. "

You were answered by KPC, but here is my take on it. Those who would resist arrest over gun laws, are the same cut of the cloth who take responsiblitiy for their own actions.

Tony

Next is a link to a video on FB where a trooper stops a car and ends up in a gun battle.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=272036643000020&fref=nf

Alright, let's talk about this video, but before we do that, let's go over a few things. Traffic stops are by far the most dangerous daily activities that an officer performs. If you're an officer, you have no idea of who you're stopping. This could be a person wanted by the U.S. Marshalls--been there, done that--this could be a person that just committed a crime. You don't know but they think you know or eventually will find out and that's why you're stopping them.

If they have a weapon and they're desperate enough, they'll use it. What you can't see can kill you--hands, tinted windows, etc. Sitting in a car limits your mobility. This is why officers ask that you stay in the car. It keeps them safe and it keeps you safe and prevents flight on foot. If any of you have been stopped by an Alabama State Trooper, you may have been patted down for weapons and placed in the passenger seat next to him. Sitting next to him, he doesn't have to look up from his ticket book every three letters he writes to see if you're reaching under the seat or trying to exit the car.

Now let's analyze the video. An Oregon State Trooper stops a car for speeding. In just the first few seconds of the video, the suspect stops and exits the car before the trooper can get his car I'm park. He assumes a boxed or shooter's stance and conceals his hands. What you can't see outside of the view of the camera is that when the trooper exits his vehicle, he has the suspect at gunpoint and is giving him verbal commands to get back in his vehicle.

The suspect refuses the commands and closes the door to his vehicle. Closing the door suggests that he has no intention of getting in his vehicle, and because he closed the door with his shoulder rather than his hand further suggests that he is concealing something. Despite the trooper's commands and being at gunpoint, the suspect starts to advance, closing the distance between them.

Some would argue at this point that the trooper would be within the scope of the law to let the killer bees fly. I would have to agree. Although a weapon has not been presented, you do not sign a death pact every time you begin your tour of duty. You don't know what he has in his hands or his intentions. All you do know is that you've got this guy at gunpoint, his hands are concealed, he's ignoring everything you're telling him, and he's advancing on you. Eventually, the suspect produces a gun, but the trooper gets the first shot off because he's already up on target.

A short lived gun battle begins and the suspect flees the scene. The aftermath of what you can't see in the video is that I've been told that the suspect had no jail record and had never received a ticket. I've been told that he also had his little girl in the backseat.

So why did he wig out? No one knows, but it does put to bed that only ex-cons and those who stay in trouble with the law assault law enforcement officers. Also, you can't tell, but the trooper actually shot this guy despite him running to his car and fleeing the scene. He later bled out and died a few miles down the road. This dispells the Hollywood notion that people get shot one time, wince and keel over dead. The next time the news reports that the suspect was shot "X" number of times, remember this video. You shoot until the threat is neutralized. The suspect was also trained. Despite being shot, he had the presence of mind to drop his magazine, reload, and scan for threats before making his escape.

Traffic stops and domestic calls are high risk situations for officers. They must expect the worst. OTH, I think their training needs to be refocused regarding the general public. The military look including buzz haircuts and lack of returning friendly greetings is causing officers to needlessly have some mistrust and resentment directed at them.

Maybe time for a new profession?

Appearances are important. No doubt there are good reasons for wearing short hair in your profession. Yet, some in the public perceive the short hair and military garb as intimidation. Again no doubt this reduces the chances of someone doing something stupid. But, protests continue to grow. Officers need the public on their side. Time for the image of officers to lighten up and realize the vast majority of the public is good just as the vast majority of officers are.

There are not just minorities in those protest crowds. My comments are not directed at the individual officers but rather the perceptions being propagated that may make their jobs more difficult today,

Again, thanks for your service!

For example, I didn't have any type of driving ticket and still have not been ticketed to this day. In other words, they found NOTHING. I guess that I am just one of those people that follow the law.

I probably wouldn't be much fun to hang out with.

I've said about all I care to or feel the need to. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Why wasn't she taken down? You can bet your a$$ if that were anyone of us we would have needed to go to the hospital.

Then another judge drops the charges...

People in government are not supposed to be above the law!

Judging by the Garner case, 12 year old BB gun kid, guy shopping at walmart case....They are above us...

Narlyhorn, appreciate your input, dissagreement, and happiness. ;^)

While all these deaths are tragic in their own sense, they all have one thing in common, the altercations began by the now deceased making a conscious decision to break the law. As far as race relations go, Obama has set them back 40 to 50 years.

Discriminate?????get real. I said appearances matter. And sometimes those appearances invite unintended judgments. I am not arguing the correctness of those judgments, just pointing out that they will happen. How many here have judged the ghetto attire and concluded things about those wearing it? Yet we should not expect others to judge LEOs for their appearance?

Human life is sacred, all of it. Maybe we should all be a little more open minded about realizing cultures are different and be willing to make adjustments that would not violate safety or compromise laws yet try to help prevent perceptions from causing escalations to the point a life is lost over cigarettes?

God bless, Steve

God bless, Steve

The Grand Jury got all kinds of evidence and data we've not seen. I'm going with their decision.

Added:

Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

As for the tax, Matthew 22:

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

I do not interpret the Bible literally. You will disagree most likely. Evil is present, and sometimes wins.

Just like Garner. They didn't do anything to her. If me or you resist arrest we could be killed.

This is a choke hold...in any fight.

Indightment called for.

God bless, Steve

Indightment called for.

God bless, Steve

Don't resist arrest, and you have nothing to worry about.

The second photo shows a poorly applied Japanese Strangle Hold.

The third photo shows a properly applied Japanese Strangle Hold.

(Yep, did a tad bit of Judo in my youth)

All here on this thread are smart enough to Google how long it takes to choke someone to death.

( Hint: it is a whole lot longer than the time they spent taking Garner down. )

By the way, banning choke holds are NYPD Policy.

If anyone has a link to NY Law stating otherwise, I would be glad to read it. Just because the media says choke holds are illegal, or Sixby says they are illegal, does not make it so.

With much violence and anger, Christ drove the moneychangers out of the Temple - on two occasions.

Yep, he made Peter put away his sword, and healed the ear of the Soldier that Peter cut.

I'm in MMA and I think I know what will choke you and what won't.

Let me do that to you and see if you don't start turning red within 10 seconds.

this officer should have a grievance but I think even though the hold was legal, the NYPD concluded it was a choke hold in that it effectively restricted the breathing to some degree of an already unhealthy person.

No legal case, but does deserve termination IMO, if my assumptions are correct.

"Let me do that to you and see if you don't start turning red within 10 seconds. "

If you look at your first photo that you posted of the Cop and Garner, look at the palms of garner. ( Hard to see flush on a black persons face, but the palms are a dead givaway.)

They, his palms, are not pooling oxygenless blood. They are pink, thus normal, showing that at that point he was getting good blood flow with good oxygen. The Brain sacrafices extremeties first whenever there is a lack of oxygen or blood flow.

Since you are in MMA, you should know all that.

I do beleive you are letting your emotional hatred of Police Officers overcome the facts that even yourself post.

Tony

I just think there is an inconsistency here. If it is not a choke hold, why was the officer disciplined?

God bless, Steve

If one reads news on a daily basis, be it politics or crime, it is always somebody else's fault.

Scan a few of the threads lately on the CF with that in mind ;o)

Ultimately, every individual is responsible for the results of their own actions--both good and bad.

It is not a "choke" hold even though it is referred to as a rear naked choke in the MMA world. If done properly, the airway is in the hollow of the elbow and your upper and lower arms are applying pressure on the carotid sinus. This area is thought to regulate blood pressure.

By applying pressure(strike or squeeze) to this area the brain is tricked into thinking its blood pressure is out of whack and basically shuts down for a reset.

Done correctly. the person is out almost instantly.

Now it is very difficult to apply perfectly in a fight, but this wasn't a fight. The cop was the only one fighting while his partners were keeping the perp looking at them. Once the cop saw he did it wrong he should have stopped or readjusted. The cop wasn't in any danger.

As a life long martial artist and instructor, what I saw was a cop that wanted to try out his new shiny toy, the choke hold. There were so many better options. The best would have been to let him walk away, defuse the situation and get him in a better location.

Its a shame that our police have turned into tax collectors.

BTW- I know its a tough job. But, I have helped train police in close quarters combat and know this was just a stupid technique to use by a wanna be cowboy

Just my opinion, based on 40 years experience.

Carl

I guess only the perps have to take responsibility, the cops get a free pass?

Not exactly.

He had dozens of priors.

He resisted arrest, which is DUMB!

He was seriously over-weight and had medical issues.

He was on parole.

Representation before Taxation was the rally cry back in 1776, July 4th.

. . . and since that time, our Forefathers gave us a Representative Republic based on the rule of law. If you believe the Police have no justification in arresting you, you will have your day in Court.

That is the way it has been done in our system of Laws, not King Georges.

God bless, Steve

Help me understand. Most all of us here deplore the msm and much of what we read and see on-line. We demand fair trials and not one of us would want to be tried (hung) in the court of public opinion.

Yet that's what I see going on here. The officer is being tried and convicted on the CF based on what we see from the msm.

None of us were on the Grand Jury. THEY saw and heard evidence we have not seen. In the GJ process, only the prosecutor presents a case. The accused gives no defense. Even so, the GJ chose not to bring charges.

Yet some of us here think we know more about the FACTS than they did?

Really?

I don't think I've ever seen such a clear and concise explanation as the one KPC has put up on this thread on multiple occasions. Leave the emotion out of the reading and it should be as plain as the nose on everyone's collective face.

Stifle the "yeah but" arguments and deal with the facts:

1. Eric Garner was engaged in an illegal activity, one for which he had been arrested for on multiple occastions.

2. Eric Garner was approached by the police and knowing the drill chose not to go peacefully and resisted arrest.

3. As a result of #2 Mr. Garner is now deceased.

If, as some here have advocated, Mr. Garner had a right, if not a responsibility to protest an unjust law here is one non-fatal scenario:

1. Accept the arrest peacefully.

2. Contact an attorney and file a suit challenging the law.

3. If unsuccessful with #2 contact your representatives in government (all levels) and voice your concerns. Press those representatives to make the changes you feel morally compelled to make a stand on.

Under any of the other "yeah but" scenarios the exact same sequence can be repeated. Fight the law within the boundaries of our legal system.

If you choose to go outside those boundaries accept whatever consequences arise and do not whine about the end result that comes about as a direct consequence of your actions.

"for which these police are acting as enforcement thugs. "

I have a lot of respect for you, and enjoy most of your threads and posts.

You crossed the line with your statement above, calling those Officers "thugs".

The Officers, in the Garner case, were not thugs, did not act like thugs, and operated within the law. They did not deserve your comment.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for that post.

Tony

Habitat - In some ways, yes. You take a big guy down differently than a little old lady. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Which says the LEO did not know what he was doing with that move, and so shouldn't have used it.

The cop applying the choke was the only one acting like a "thug". If he really needed to take him down and choke him out, he could have popped his his knee joint with his foot or better ran his knuckles down his spine into the hollow of the back while reaching around the neck.

The guy would have bent backwards quickly.

But the real point is that by using this technique the cop took this thing to a much greater physical altercation than it would have ever gone.

I mean really, was he going to run away from them?

See Plywood's response. The fact that he is trained ought to say something to all of us. Did the GJ hear from experts such as Plywood? Both sides are assuming things to attack the other position.

The facts I don't dispute-a person with a criminal history involved in criminal activity not listening to police. Hmm, is the government listening to us-or the protestors? Maybe that role model example everyone keeps talking about that should be followed is that some people are following the role model the government has set.

The facts are also that there are protests. If the prevailing attitude here is "so what", let's see where that will take the country.

Again, do not think the officer should be prosecuted. Do think the government ought to invite experts like Plywood to help change policy and better train officers to avoid the results we saw here, but still accomplish the goal of stopping criminal activity.

I bet the majority of Americans would concur, but then I am wrong a lot!

??? Excuse me but have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Jesus is the head of my revolution and He will handle it all very well.

God bless, Steve

"11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won't Tell You

Thursday, 04 Dec 2014

By Jim Meyers

Sources in the mainstream media expressed outrage after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City policeman in the death of Eric Garner, but there are 11 significant facts that many of them have chosen to overlook:

1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes.

Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: "You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different," he told Newsmax. "He wouldn't be dead today.

"Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don't have the ability to say, 'Well, this is a minor arrest, so we're just going to ignore you.'"

2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: "Don't touch me!"

3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.

4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.

5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death.

But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo's attorney and police union officials argued that Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death.

6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.

7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.

Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said: "It was clear that the officer's intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused."

8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.

9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.

10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a "substantial risk" that Garner would have died due to the takedown.

11. Less than a month after Garner's death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice's waistband outside a New York hotel."

On number 11, is the video some how inaccurate because it was shot by a criminal?

Don't doubt this action by the cop is in line with training received. We ought to focus on training better take down methods as outlined above by plywood. JMO, but the focus her seems to be the guy deserved it, move on. Again, JMO, but the focus ought to be what can we learn here to avoid a future similar situation. Maybe by just trying to learn, it will help the police do better in their jobs, even might improve race relations which would also be helpful in doing their job?

Can we expect that from our government? Shouldn't we demand it from them. I guess this is my official protest. I'm too busy to march;)

What did Garner THINK was going to happen? That they would let him go? Just ignore what he'd already been arrested for numerous times??

The WSJ covered a story of how action will probably be taken regarding counting in annual statistics the number of civilians killed by officers each year as currently this is not done. I was surprised to learn this, but if we want rational behavior to preside then let's have all of the stats.

Again, this case and the Ferguson one are not the hill to die on IMO; however, there are just too many stories like the Montona Game Warden on the BGF or the traffic cop I posted about here etc. that should have us at least being watchful. It amazes me all of the government bashing on these threads, yet cops seem to get a free pass by the same people. I am a teacher. I am the government. I don't believe in tenure. I believe in accountability, for all of us.

We mostly agree, though the GJ did not determine anything other than whether the actions were criminal. I strongly agree that there are too many crying wolf cases, but many said the same thing of the Rodney case. No doubt cameras have had an effect on police behavior.

There was at least one person who if his qualifications are what he says causes me to question this case.

I don't trust the MSM but typically other sources will provide enough of the truth. I just want the complete story before we hang the guy, that's what we should all do iIMO.

A Staten Island justice will hold a hearing next week on a motion by the New York Civil Liberties Union seeking the public release of the Eric Garner grand-jury record.

From what I see before the release....

The Officer used a NYPD prohibited practice of choking which was the primary cause of death. Health reasons were only contributing factors as stated by the M.E.

Democrats and Republicans are ignoring the underlying problem because Republicans love morality laws and democrats know whats best for you.

"Since 2006, the tax on cigarettes in New York have risen 190 percent and cigarette smuggling has risen by 59 percent, writes Lawrence J. McQuillan of the Independent Institute. Whether it’s liquor, drugs, or cigarettes, when you try to stamp out something consenting adults want, you cause as many or more problems as you ameliorate."

Take legal guns out of communities and make them cost prohibitive for people in poverty so they can't defend themselves.

Take communities without hope and education who rely on cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs and then tax heavily or ban these vices and expect it to help these people.

This just creates a black market and an incentive for crime. Seems like a good way for Republicrats to keep them on the plantation so to speak.

Up until this last case I didn't really see a race angle, now I wonder...

what don't you understand? The GJ investigated solely criminality. If this hold was a choke hold and against policy, even though not illegal, it is wrong. You maY choose to live not knowing, I would rather be informed and learn from the facts.

All guns should be turned over to the government.

I agree with K Cummings.

Paul McCartney says he’s having a hard time coming up with good material that would eventually become a protest anthem to honor the rallies for Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

“I was thinking recently about all these protests in New York and around the country,” he told Rolling Stone, “I thought it would be great to put something down about that, just to add my voice to the thousands of people walking in the streets.”

I can help-

Black boy looting in the light of day

Steal these blunts and walk away

All your life

You were only waiting for your welfare check to arrive

Black boy thugging in the light of day

Punch a cop and grab his gun

All your life

You were representin and now you just decay

Black boy die… Black boy die…

See the light on this dark black blight