Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indict

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What's really sad is that the news didn't say that Garner had ANY CIGARETTES on him at the time of his arrest. The only thing said was that he was suspected (or alleged to have) of selling loose cigarettes. This is a tragedy which breaks my heart for justice, but God knows all.

They didn't say he did not have cigs on him at the time either. So it's unknown whether he did it did not

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think there is enough for a grand jury to reasonably say it wasn't manslaughter. All they would have to conclude is either
1. The cop was unaware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk or
2. The cop did not consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk
3. The risk was justifiable
4. The risk was not a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a normal individual would observe.

Under New York law a person would not be guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter if any of those requirements were met. 1st degree manslaughter is even harder due to intent being needed.

As I have said in a previous post, grand juries don't always get it right. However, that is fine with me because in the end Justice will be served on ALL men, including the cop who done the act.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by jfrog

They didn't say he did not have cigs on him at the time either. So it's unknown whether he did it did not

What?????? The cops wouldn't have done some sort of search after a grave foul up? Okay, I'll go with that, but it seems unlikely since they (cops) have to do their job of making sure the guy was really guilty.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

As I have said in a previous post, grand juries don't always get it right. However, that is fine with me because in the end Justice will be served on ALL men, including the cop who done the act.

You've gotta see how it would be easy for them to conclude 1 of those 4 things though. Maybe they were wrong but surely you can admit such a conclusion wasn't unreasonable?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What?????? The cops wouldn't have done some sort of search after a grave foul up? Okay, I'll go with that, but it seems unlikely since they (cops) have to do their job of making sure the guy was really guilty.

Just saying they could have found cigs on him and it just didn't get reported by the news.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You've gotta see how it would be easy for them to conclude 1 of those 4 things though. Maybe they were wrong but surely you can admit such a conclusion wasn't unreasonable?

Problem with that is that even the NYC police dept said they disallowed choke holds.

Spike Lee on Garner grand jury decision

But that judgment certainly doesn't end the debate about what Pantaleo did -- not just whether it was a criminal act, but whether it was necessary and in violation of the New York Police Department's own policies.

In an interview in August with CNN's Chris Cuomo, New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department. In fact, the NYPD could discipline Pantaleo or his fellow officers if an ongoing internal review finds their actions did not align with police department procedures.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Problem with that is that even the NYC police dept said they disallowed choke holds.

Spike Lee on Garner grand jury decision

But that judgment certainly doesn't end the debate about what Pantaleo did -- not just whether it was a criminal act, but whether it was necessary and in violation of the New York Police Department's own policies.

In an interview in August with CNN's Chris Cuomo, New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said that no local laws criminalize chokeholds, though they are prohibited by his department. In fact, the NYPD could discipline Pantaleo or his fellow officers if an ongoing internal review finds their actions did not align with police department procedures.

I basically agree. Sometimes it's not about what a policy says on paper especially if the policy was not taught or if its application was mis taught.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What's really sad is that the news didn't say that Garner had ANY CIGARETTES on him at the time of his arrest. The only thing said was that he was suspected (or alleged to have) of selling loose cigarettes. This is a tragedy which breaks my heart for justice, but God knows all.

Actually, having cigarettes on him is not evidence of a crime

But let me repeat again what I said earlier....the Police do not and did not make this dumb law nor the policy to aggressively pursue it

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Problem with that is that even the NYC police dept said they disallowed choke holds.

I posted a link addressing that...

From what I have read the banned chokehold is one that presses against the windpipe. Not all chokeholds are intended to do that

Again I think the problem is not this one officer but the department that, they have said, trains them to DO THIS in the academy

[Praxeas]

"Defenders of the officer involved say he was using a proper technique -- one he had learned in the academy that stays away from a person's throat and neck. The New York City medical examiner's office has called Garner's death a homicide resulting from "compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police.”"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...l-being-filed/

If that is true, we need to be angry at the department. It says that its been very common to use these restraints and the department has done nothing about them...essentially approving them by default