And contrary to your assertions about knowing the facts. Here is the only fact you need to know, its almost impossible to indict a cop for any misconduct while on duty and even more rare to actually convict. The standard in which we used to judge officers is flawed. Objective reasonableness, based upon the perceptions of the officer at the time, gives police free reign to act in any manner they want. They know they won't be help accountable for their mistakes or poor judgment. All they have to do is claim "I feared for my life" and they are absolved from responsibility.
The system is rigged against citizens to ever prevail criminally. In fact, in many jurisdictions, officers involved in shootings do not immediately have to make a statement allowing up to 48 hrs based upon rules negotiated during collective bargaining agreements. During this time, officers are coached to write reports, after consulting with union reps, that are invariably filled with terms like "aggressiveness, furtive movements, reach more their waist, feared for my life". This, coupled with the fact that local prosecutors are reliant upon the police to get convictions of the public, there is no incentive to ruin the relationship with police in order to convict a an officer accused of misconduct. This is evident by the indictment statistics: " According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them." ---From FiveThirtyEight.com So if a prosecutor, really wanted to indict cop for misconduct, they could. They choose not to. Historically, the best chance for justice for a citizen is through the civil courts, hitting communities in the pocketbook. In some communities, this has actually forced them to shut down their departments because the cannot pay the insurance premiums to protect against liabilities caused by excessive force. Finally, in this case. This was a clear case of excessive force and some of the officers involved need to be fired, convicted and in jail.No, proly not.
Lets hope not. But can we all look at the evidence before leaping to conclusions?
No, proly not.
They think and act very differently over there.
I guess a video and a anti choke hold law by police does not mean anything!
This thing is far from over and it's a pattern!
No, proly not.
-- Modified on 12/3/2014 12:59:33 PM
as the question for the GJ is if there was enough evidence for probable cause for a trial and obviously they said no.
My guess is he will be disciplined and possibly fired for not following procedure but that doesn't make him a felon.
There will certainly be a wrongful death claim by the family and I think that will be successful. NYC will most likely settle this out of court.
I said no one should be surprised because this is Staten Island.
They do things and operate like in the south.
If you don't know NYC it's not like the other four boroughs.
When it's a video and this report from the medical examiner.
This cop is not out of the woods yet by the feds!
And contrary to your assertions about knowing the facts. Here is the only fact you need to know, its almost impossible to indict a cop for any misconduct while on duty and even more rare to actually convict. The standard in which we used to judge officers is flawed. Objective reasonableness, based upon the perceptions of the officer at the time, gives police free reign to act in any manner they want. They know they won't be help accountable for their mistakes or poor judgment. All they have to do is claim "I feared for my life" and they are absolved from responsibility.
The system is rigged against citizens to ever prevail criminally. In fact, in many jurisdictions, officers involved in shootings do not immediately have to make a statement allowing up to 48 hrs based upon rules negotiated during collective bargaining agreements. During this time, officers are coached to write reports, after consulting with union reps, that are invariably filled with terms like "aggressiveness, furtive movements, reach more their waist, feared for my life". This, coupled with the fact that local prosecutors are reliant upon the police to get convictions of the public, there is no incentive to ruin the relationship with police in order to convict a an officer accused of misconduct. This is evident by the indictment statistics:
" According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them." ---From FiveThirtyEight.com
So if a prosecutor, really wanted to indict cop for misconduct, they could. They choose not to. Historically, the best chance for justice for a citizen is through the civil courts, hitting communities in the pocketbook. In some communities, this has actually forced them to shut down their departments because the cannot pay the insurance premiums to protect against liabilities caused by excessive force.
Finally, in this case. This was a clear case of excessive force and some of the officers involved need to be fired, convicted and in jail.
No, proly not.
what is the standard?
You are a little off on your understanding of the standard as what you are describing is the Fourth Amendment standard for civil liability for excessive force in making an arrest; there is a different civil standard for excessive force used on persons in custody.
You also don’t seem to understand the objective reasonableness standard at all.
“All they have to do is claim "I feared for my life" and they are absolved from responsibility.”
Completely wrong – subjective belief does not do it.
But I’m not trying to beat up on you for that. I want to know what your standard is.
In this case, we are talking about criminal liability. And the criminal standard for using deadly force is a matter of state law, and most states add additional limitations on the use of deadly force in making an arrest. But here is the New York standard applied in this case:
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary
to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person from what
the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly
physical force.
So what would you replace the “the officer reasonably believes” standard with?
And before you answer, I will tell you that “objective reasonableness” is the standard by which most state law self defense claims are judged. So if you depart from this standard, you are depriving the police of the same right of self defense that an ordinary citizen has. Is that your intention?
What standard does DAFlex propose
In this case, they gave this guy quite a bit of say before they attempted to arrest him. He said his peace, he tried to talk himself out of being arrested like any of us would, and the cops on the scene decided an arrest was warranted.
The man had numerous health problems (asthma, high blood pressure, obesity, etc.) that were most likely mitigating factors in the GJ mind and they may have concluded that the man himself, by resisting and obviously knowing his own health issues, was primarily responsible for his own death. I don't know that as fact as the GJ evidence is sealed. Just a hunch.
Look, once again, most people in society give the police a wide latitude in the use of force as the vast majority know the cops have virtually an impossible job in keeping themselves safe as well as that of the public at large against a large contingent of assholes and thugs.
The video is troubling, no doubt. But they didn't shoot him. They didnt TASE him. They tried to bring him down to arrest and cuff him and he resisted. If he didn't resist, he would be alive today.
I want to see all the evidence before I make any final decision. The GJ was 23 people and 9 were non-white. Seems like a fairly balanced GJ, at least racially. They didn't see enough evidence to warrant a trial. I, nor you, are capable of saying otherwise since we aren't privy to everything they heard and saw.
There is one theme that seems to run through these cases. African American males are confronted by police officers and they do not heed their warning and argue/resist or assault the cops. If the police are as bad and racist as some on the left would have us believe, wouldn't that give blacks even MORE reason to do what the cops are telling them to do before violence ensues???
-- Modified on 12/4/2014 12:00:50 AM
sharpton gets involved, and we know he will.
Thamk you
So many people used the video tape last week against Mike Brown.
What is the excuse now with these clown cops.
They make all cops look bad!
Thamk you
I never said it was about sharpton, (Why do you DISHONESTLY twist what I posted) but sharpton will make it about sharpton.
You're Welcome
2016 = GOP WH, Senate and House
So it's bad enough you are a liar.
Just learn how to spell the word thank you next time smart guy.
We can all see you misspelled the word wrong in your earlier comment!
followme
Posted 12/3/2014 at 2:50:37 PM
The real trouble will start when
sharpton gets involved, and we know he will.
Thamk you
-- Modified on 12/3/2014 9:18:01 PM
When you have to keep people fooled you find others to blame!
I guess all of the lying is finally catching up to you.
Thanks for showing again you are a clown!
-- Modified on 12/4/2014 2:09:23 AM
They're for hiding the blood on their hands
......the Grand jury could have indicted him on something like involuntary manslaughter at the very least. This guy was unarmed and violating a petty tax law, selling loose cigarettes. Cliven Bundy on the other hand refuses to pay $1 million in cow grazing fees, he and his cronies surround and issue threats at Federal authorities and he goes home free. Wow what a country!
-- Modified on 12/4/2014 8:44:38 AM
-- Modified on 12/4/2014 8:53:07 AM
I'm torn about the whole thing. On one hand, That cop should have got involuntary and the others should have got reckless endangerment. What a stupid reason for someone to die! On the other hand, these big government libs are voted in with all their promises of everything people want. Then, Surprise! You get a big idiological hack who wants 6 dollar taxes on cigs. and control how big your soft drinks are! Who coined the phrase"people get the kind of government they deserve"? Not saying the guy deserved. He damn sure didn't! But, with all the nanny state laws we have in big cities, who can be surprised that a guy got killed while selling bootleg cigarettes.
And the bar was incredibly low to do so in this case, needing only 12 of the 23 members of the GJ with the preponderance of the evidence threshold. Maybe the GJ actually listened and looked at all the evidence in its totality, as they are instructed to do? And how much of the evidence have you and I seen and how much do you know about NY law in this matter? Close to zero?
It always mystifies me that people know better than the Ferguson GJ or the NY GJ and yet they spent not one second in the room with the witnesses and listening to the expert testimony to make a determination on all the evidence, not just some of the evidence certain people here LOVE to cherry pick.
Those are two different cases. But, you're right. I haven't seen all the evidence. My biggest gripe is what they went after the guy to start with.
-- Modified on 12/4/2014 10:17:00 AM
Cops can do whatever the hell they want, be video taped doing it, and be totally exonerated no matter how egregious. The only caveat is the victim cannot be of notable wealth, power or fame.
What a bunch of fucking lies they told me/everyone in Civics Class in school.
The white cop kill him but his supervisor was a black felmale police Sergent who was right there too!
Plus these cops already knew this guy from the neighborhood.
Also the Rodney king video made me sick but he did not die that night!
So to me this case is worse than Rodney King.
-- Modified on 12/4/2014 11:08:21 AM
But the ethos/morality is the same. RK set the precedent. It was the test case so to speak. Once the cops knew that the "prosecutor" would cave to the "Blue Wall" for fear of later losing the backing of the police their abuse of power and thuggery merely multiplied and escalated.
It doesn't matter what race, religion or sex a police officer is. After some time on the force they simply become part of the "Blue Wall" which trusts only itself, and considers everyone else an enemy and a criminal.
Asset Forfeiture begun by Ronald Reagan so to go after criminal drug cartels and kingpins is now used to strong arm money from every hapless citizen who decides to put more than a couple hundred dollars in cash in their wallet, purse or 'carry-on bag'. It's the natural dynamic of power and corruption.
Plus these cops already knew this guy from the neighborhood.
Also the Rodney king video made me sick but he did not die that night!
So to me this case is worse than Rodney King.
-- Modified on 12/4/2014 11:08:21 AM
The more you hear about these two cases.
You see how things need to change when dealing with the Grand jury and cops.
The thing is NYC does have history with choke holds.
Begs the question raise about how the cops were to bring him into custody. Not being a smart ass here, but I'm wondering why tranquilizer guns can't be used. There could still be medical consequences, and many will feel like it's too degrading, since that's what we do to animals, however it still seems safer and more humane the alternatives. Again, I'm just wondering, and haven't had time to think through all the cons, so I'm open to reasons why that wouldn't be a good idea.
OMG, they would go nuts.
"See, just like we always said, society thinks AA's are apes and gorillas so they see no harm in shooting an animal with a tranquilizer."
This guy with his health issues was a ticking time bomb. He could have just as easily had a heart attack in his sleep or running to catch a bus or shoveling snow. Who really knows?
But the essence of your point is correct. This is a gray area case and there are no easy answers. But a multi-racial GJ did not indict on the most minor offense and that begs a lot of questions. I'd love to see how they voted, on each charge, knowing their races but I think that is sealed forever.
Wouldn't it change many minds here if 7 or 8 of the 9 non whites found no probable cause on even involuntary manslaughter? Or was the vote straight down racial lines?
This is a sad case not matter how you slice it. The prosecutor has asked for permission to release all the evidence and I think that will be granted. We need transparency on these cases.
This one doesn't seem as "black and white" as the Ferguson case, where it seems pretty clear to me that the cop didn't have a lot of choice. This latest case involving an illegal "choke hold" seems a bit murkier to me, but I don't have the same set of facts as was presented to the GJ.
Without the same facts as the GJ, I can't dispute their finding, but this one just doesn't look as cut and dry to me as the Ferguson case. Of course that won't stop others from drawing their own conclusions with only a smidgeon of evidence to go on. It appears that the likes of Fungus, DA, and fatgirl will assume the cop is ALWAYS guilty, no matter the circumstances. I don't believe the cop is always right, as I have seem firsthand cops abusing their authority, but I like to have at least a little proof before hanging a cop from the highest tree.
if the procedure was followed with all suspects irrespective of their race. I think, we may see tranquillizer guns used in the future, because of the issue you raised; how do you restrain an uncooperative suspect. There's is a good reason why choke holds are no longer legal. As anyone who has wrestled or participated in jujitsu knows, if you have someone in a choke hold, you are counting on him being in reasonably good shape, so he can survive the choke-hold if apply correctly, you're counting on him to tap out before he passes out, and you're counting on him to honor the tap-out, particularly if he's much bigger than you, because in those moments of releasing him can leave you extremely vulnerable. All these issues are problematic for the police office on the street. I haven't seen the video, but I suspect that one or more of the officer's teammates could have blown it. Much like in a psychiatric take-down, all members of the team much grab an extremity, and the head at the same time. Any miscalculation leaves the rest of the members vulnerable, and leave the person controlling the head, as being the one who 'jumped the shark' and can't let go, without leaving himself vulnerable.
They are against NYPD policy. What this cop did, if in fact he did use a "choke" hold (and that is in dispute) was break a rule, not a law.
That's just not a semantical distinction as breaking the law could have gotten him jailed and breaking a rule could just get him reprimanded/fired.
I agree with everything else you said.
It's nice to see "Moderate Matt" back on the board. I hope he sticks around a while. lol
and your distinction is quite relevant, as it would fully explain to me why the GJ chose not to indict. As I said, I need more facts, and you just supplied a critical one.
Now the larger issue is whether or not this "killing" was justified, and I would suspect that the officer is wide open to a civil action for wrongful death and that his actions being "against the rules" will be quite relevant in the upcoming civil case. If he is fired or reprimanded by the NYPD, the chances of a civil action being successful go up by a factor of ten.
This wont go to a civil trial. NYC will open their checkbook wide on this one and settle out of court.
Although I think the descendant was at least partially responsible for his own demise and the cop MAY have not committed a crime, the city just isn't going to try and split any hairs on this, and a lot of that has to do with keeping order and just good PR.
The family will get millions. Warranted? Who knows. This is all such a gray area to me, imo.
I also doubt that the family is really "entitled" to millions, who is really to say the value of a life or how much culpability should fall on the side of the victim, but if the millions of dollars that it costs the city of NY results in them cracking down on this practice of chokeholds, maybe the millions of dollars are worth it to save a future life?
and I agree that the city of NY would be fools to try and fight this in court. They most likely will settle before the civil papers are even filed. In this current environment of civil unrest over this, they would be fools to do otherwise.
He clearly called out, "I can't breathe".
I wonder how a person could do this, given that he was supposedly in a choke hold, which by definition prevents one from speaking, let alone breathing.
Must not have been much of a choke hold.
It's possible for a person to speak if the restrainer is using the choke-hold to restrain him. A little more pressure applied, the person is choked out; he can't speak. The wrong pressure and/or position can cause things to go lethal in a very short time.
I'm not defending anyone's actions but asking a simple question. Your link was not explicit but it seems you are saying that a choke hold is defined solely by the placement of the forearm being parallel to the shoulders regardless if any choking is actually taking place. Apparently the crushing of the larynx then becomes an easy or likely outcome from the positioning. I was asking for clarification that if no choking was taking place (i.e. he could speak) then it wasn't YET a choke hold.
Thankfully having never experienced this type of action, from either a giving or receiving perspective, I am indeed ignorant regarding the consequences. Frankly, I'm amazed that you find it even noteworthy to make a specific point that my situation seems unusual to you. Is being choked or choking someone a situation that you think is a common experience for most people? Is it for you?
"Point of order...."
What in the world does that mean in this context? See definition below. Seems like you were giving your question much more gravitas than a mere "simple question."
"Must not have been much of a choke hold."
You clearly made an assumption, and I'm educating you on how your assumption is incorrect.
The question is, on what basis did you develop that assumption; was it pure ignorance regarding the mechanics of choke holds, or other assumptions biased in certain biases? Only you can answer that! 
I have choked a few times in the past. Every single time I could not speak.
Do the people you choke continue speaking?
a little MMA. A restrain hold is different than a choke hold, however the restraining hold can turn into a choke hold in a moment. And, what's typically thought of as a 'choke' hold, is not meant to choke the person, but to limit blood flow to the brain, causing the person to pass out if he does not submit. It all can happen very quickly and that's why one never trains, or competes without having a third person monitoring the person in the submission hold.
As opposed to your other snotty attitude.
I guess I still contend that if he was in a hold that choked, it came AFTER he said he could not breathe. Your own linked material stated that a choke hold resulted in a crushed larynx. Was his crushed? I don't think we know yet.
If you had truly posed your question as being a simple question of inquiry, and without the assumption attached; or at least clarifying that your assumption was based on your choking experiences, it would have been.
regarding the inability to speak are different than than the rest of the global population. No assumption in my first post, likewise in my most previous one. The point of both were nearly identical. The only clarification needed was in your attitude.
"Must not have been much of a choke hold."
And, not owning up to what you said.
If you had communicated in the manner that you said you had, but didn't, there would not have been any attitude on my part. Along with my recollections that you consistently interpret what I say, in a negative light, why would you expect any difference from me. If your communications are in any way ambiguous, yes I will tend to interpret them based on what I may believe I understand about you, based on what you've said in the past.
-- Modified on 12/6/2014 1:47:25 PM
continue to attempt to read my mind and infer things I've never said.
My task is simple while yours is impossible. It's clear why your attitude sucks.
I'll give you a pointer! There is no need for mind reading on my part, just as long as you're clear and honest in what you communicate. The fact that you don't choose to says more about you and your attitude than mine.
P.S. Along with the jujitsu class, there are classes on how to communicate clearly; reducing ambiguity!
deserves top billing and is so important to you. i.e. that's what your title states.
Here's a pointer for you. If you believe I'm not expressing myself clearly or you think you do not understand what you just read, then 1) ask for clarification if the subject matters to you or 2) just move on if it does not matter to you or 3) don't continue to make a fool of yourself by fabricating a meaning from your imagination.
-- Modified on 12/6/2014 5:57:48 PM
You'll tire out your poor brain with this ruse, and I still won't believer you!
I initially made a post in response to Jack after he questioned the whole "choke" hold thing. I was essentially agreeing with him. What did you do? You thanked him and then attacked me. I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that I had not even read your posts that Jack was responding to. (I did finally read them after Needle made a joke about your dart guns and I was curious what he was referring to.)
It's clear you have a personal issue with who I am or how I comport myself here. I do call out your bullshit at least as much as, if not more than, most others here. How do I know it's personal? For one recent example, take a look at your Thanksgiving "good cheer" post you made. Before I ever even touched the thread with any post of my own, you had to get a dig in towards me.
That's all fine, I understand the source but YOU are the one that needs to "give it a rest"
Keep it up and the branch will get closed, saving you any furtherance of same.
BTW, Your "whine detector" is a bit out of alignment given that you are complaining that I don't address all of your remarks.
-- Modified on 12/7/2014 9:31:29 PM
the officer threw his forearm around the dudes head but never seemed to have his forearm across the neck to compress his throat. Nor did he use a forearm to close off blood to his neck.
many mma fighters find themselves in poorly executed "chokeholds", arm bars, heel hooks, etc throughout a fight but manage to escape. He could speak because the hold was incorrecty applied if "choking" was the purpose.
In this case, there wasnt an attempt to choke but rather take him to the ground. Once there, it seems he was in such poor physical condition, the weight on his body was what caused his death.
maybe he should have been shot with one of matts dart guns.
... and nothing else. Real Liberals would call this Social Darwinism at work.
Mexicans bought off with a free pass and work permits.
Next will be the vagina vote
We all vote according to our own interests. All you Republican's need to do is convince them that you have their best interest at heart. Good luck with that.
P.S. If you're not part of the .01 per cent you too are a pawn.
Back into slavery by the white rich old men. And if it weren't for you all Mexicans would be deported tomorrow. And of course a rich white male (old of course) would Benin control if every single woman's vagina.
Sure, okay, Mr Snakeoil.
BTW, are you a pawn or a .01%er. You said it was either or. I reject your non factual assertion myself. I'm neither.
Which one are you?
their best interests? If the Republican's can convince them that they have their best interests at heart, over that of the Democrats, there is no issue. You coming here to state your case about how Republican policies and politicians are best, does nothing to persuade them. Just makes you sound like a bitter old man who isn't getting his way!
No, I'm not part of the .01 percent, and I'm under no illusion about having to play the game of life based on the elite's rules of the game and in their stadium. If I were afforded the resources needed to reach my full potential, my life would look differently. However, I"m a thankful realist. I realize that on my ship of life, and my freedoms to reach that potential are constrained by the owners of the ship and the captain. Yet, I can choose to enjoy what range of opportunities I do have, while on board. So, I am thankful for what I have, and what I've become, given the limits of the resources available to me, though I'm not blind to the reality of the limits placed on me, and by whom; including myself.
So far, Dems have convinced them they voting them into office is "in their best interest". So, how's it going so far?
I'd posit, and so would some black people themselves that the whole dummycrapper promise is a BIG LIE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_YQ8560E1w
See, I happen to agree with him, that dummycrappers are selfish, lying, pawnmasters. By their fruits you shall know them.
By you coming on here, claiming that dummycrapper policies MUST be in their best interest belies they lying and demagaugery so famous of the dummycrappers, make you sound like a paternalistic white self loathing patzer.
So, since you are not a .01% er, that by YOUR definition makes YOU a pawn. A dummycrapper pawn. Dont feel bad, you have company
Yes, the Democrats haven't succeeded much regarding their promises, however the Republican hands are not clean in those failures. Some of the failures have to do with poor policy, poor planning, and incompetence of government bureaucrats. However, many failures are due to insufficient funding, in whole or in part. Anyone who has run a business or non-profit knows that you can spend a substantial amount of money on an aspect of that business, say advertising, or in a program, and if it's underfunded, it will fail. That large sum of money is wasted; down the drain. That's how it is in government. Even with new technology, weapons, research, the same story.
Still, since you say the Democrats have lied or failed so miserably, why can't the Republicans convince them that the Republican party has their best interests at heart, and they should vote Republican?
After decades of failure, only a liar would deny the facts.
It's not even a matter of money, which you elude to. Please don't tell me the "war on poverty" failed because a lack of funding. That's laughable. If anything, it's because the liberal white massas in DC stuff their own pockets at the expense of the poor.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
VPOTUS: Put ya'll back in chains"
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/biden-chains-race-baiting/2012/08/15/id/448696/
Former First Lady:
Speaking during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event, Clinton also offered an apology to a group of Hurricane Katrina survivors "on behalf of a government that left you behind, that turned its back on you." Her remarks were met with thunderous applause by a mostly black audience at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem.
The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-N.Y.
Juan Williams Sick of Pols ‘Pushing Race Button’ for ‘Short-Term Gain’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Y0unTWcnQ#t=57
So, the answer to your last question is that for decades now the cynical lying pieces of shit democrats have convinced these people that big goverment is good, and that rich, white, old men are their biggest problem.
It's not "just a lie", it's a direct political tactic
And, Newsmax. When you have minority opinion, you have to go to the dregs to find anything to back it up. Very wimpy!
Not surprising you refer to him and skip over the Vice President and First lady/Sec State/Senator from New York.
Do you know who they are?
Ever hear of this Paleface?
Malcom
You tried to diminish my post by questioning who Johan Goldberg was (as if that dininishes the the pint he was making!!).
You ignored my inclusion of DEMOCRAT Vice President Joe Bidedn telling a group of blacks that Republican policies seek to "put ya'll back in chains"
You ignored my inclusion of Former First Lady (that's the wife of the DEMOCRAT President of the United States, if you need a little help), Former Secratary of State, and former Senator of New York telling a group of mostly blacks on Martin Luther King Day that "Republicans have been running this place like a plantation, you know what I'm talking about"
Do you know who THEY are?
Do you know who Malcolm X is, who said EXACTLY WHAT IM SAYING, that Democrats use blacks as "CHUMPS"?
Since we both agree that Democrat policies have failed and yet they garner 95% of the black vote, it's you that ought to explain what the Dummycrappers are offering them, besides using them as pawns and attracting them with cynical racebaiting.
With assault I am pretty sure. If they were against department policy, it could be argued he used it on his own accord. Wouldnt that leave room to charge him with assault at the very least? Gardner wasn't facing him, hadn't made an aggressive move and didn't even have his hands raised for the most part. The cop directly in front of him might have a case for self defense but the one jumping on him from behind? I would be willing to bet a decent trial lawyer would have gotten at least some sort of charges from a grand jury if they really wanted to. The fact that they didn't bothers me more than what happened almost. It probably should go to a jury trial based solely on the fact that they are told not to use choke holds.
That said I wouldnt want to wrestle with a man gardners size either. With as many cops as they had there and the other options available a choke hold locked on like that was a pretty bad choice. I would assume they have stun guns, much safer than wrestling on the ground with a 300+ lb man, or even kicking him in the back of the knees.
Did he murder him? No. Manslaughter? I don't think so. Simple assault? I might say the cop did. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not but that's not what a grand jury is suppose to do. Was there enough evidence to charge him?? Just from the video I ve seen i d say yes but I also wasn't in the room with them. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the DA didn't push very hard for charges, because let's face it that would just cost the city more money, time and to some extent admit wrong doing.
That's just not a semantical distinction as breaking the law could have gotten him jailed and breaking a rule could just get him reprimanded/fired.
I agree with everything else you said.
anyone know how much money 'Cop baiter #1 (Sharpton)' has made in the last couple of weeks?
I wonder if the liberals have noticed, that the Democrats won't and can't do anything to change how the world is?
Why they continue to vote based upon social NONSENSE is beyond me.