Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indict

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The way I remember it, your assertion that I would kill Americans and even be glad to do it came from a direct question you asked about if there would ever be a time when I would fire on Americans and I didn't answer the question to your liking.

I didn't want to fire on anybody "first" or anything like that. When you have the time and the interest, re-visit that thread and see our exchanges.

Yea, that was it. I believe it was that I didn't feel comforted by your answer. My husband is former military and his response to the question was totally different than yours. I have more confidence in the older military than I do this younger group.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And you think the police are not aware of this in their training? Also, it speaks to Prax's point - the police were not aware of Garner's health history of asthma, etc.

I don't doubt they're aware of this in training. I also understand live incidents sometimes cause people to do things contrary to their training. In the heat of the moment, it's not impossible for someone to either forget or dismiss what they've been trained. Cops aren't robots. They act and react with emotions like anyone else, including bad emotions such as anger, rage, etc.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Also, it is ridiculous to think that when the police are subduing a character that they are going to release tension during a take down. How many lying criminals do they meet everyday? Lots.

The man was in handcuffs. Also, how many times have you ever witnessed an obese person (in cuffs) jump up quick? Sorry, I don't buy the argument that removing a knee from someone's back in order to allow the lungs to fill with air would somehow put the officers lives in danger. There were several officers. IIRC, at least 5 or 6 standing around him. He was unarmed, obese, and as has been pointed out, an asthmatic. He wasn't a threat. Even when standing he threw no punches, nor made any movements to attack the officers. They could have had the human decency to make sure he could breathe.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You are also trying to indicate that the police were trying to intentionally strangle Garner. The GJ, after reviewing the evidence, didn't think he was negligent. IOW, whatever he did during this altercation wasn't seen as vengeance of a police officer.

The point of posting the article was to counter your blanket statement that no one can speak if they're being choked. That's not always correct.

On the situation in general, I do believe the officer(s) were negligent in their takedown of Garner - both the cop who had his arm around his neck and the one who was kneeling on his back. I also believe the paramedics, who were on video doing basically nothing to assist Garner, should be held accountable in any civil suit.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

All day long you can say that the GJ only got to see the side of the Prosecutor, but the GJ also viewed the video. And if they didn't see excessive use of force, that's the end of the story, David.

The article at the link below lays the blame for the GJ decision on the ME and her description of the cause of death.

Allegedly, per the article, everyone involved - prosecutors and even the cop himself - were stunned the GJ did not bring a true bill against him.

"The Staten Island prosecutors felt that criminally negligent homicide - carrying a maximum four-year prison term - was the most applicable charge.

That's because Pantaleo and the other officers failed to stop their actions when Garner repeatedly said he could not breathe and did not "perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that Garner would die from his actions.

On Aug 1, the acting Medical Examiner Barbara Sampson - who was permanently elevated to the post last week by Mayor Bill de Blasio - ruled Garner's death a homicide, caused by a police chokehold."

"But rather than providing clarity, the ME's findings complicated matters for prosecutors, sources say."

"Yet in the Garner case, the ME not only ruled his death a homicide, but she took the unusual step of saying that the "method" was a police chokehold, experts and insiders say.

That would require hard proof, starting with sophisticated medical evidence in the neck of specific broken bones and damaged tissue, and ending with certainty that Pantaleo used a chokehold barred by the NYPD."

Source Link

Because juries must follow specific rules regarding charges and how to rule on them, I find it completely believable that the GJ would have given a true bill had it not been for the ME's stated cause of death requiring evidence of crushed or broken bones in the alleged suspect's neck.

It's important to note that the Prosecutor felt Pantaleo's (and the other officers) failure to stop and assist Garner to insure he was able to breathe could be deemed as criminally negligent behavior.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I don't doubt they're aware of this in training. I also understand live incidents sometimes cause people to do things contrary to their training. In the heat of the moment, it's not impossible for someone to either forget or dismiss what they've been trained. Cops aren't robots. They act and react with emotions like anyone else, including bad emotions such as anger, rage, etc.

Well, you are speculating that is what happened. You simply can't prove it.

The man was in handcuffs. Also, how many times have you ever witnessed an obese person (in cuffs) jump up quick? Sorry, I don't buy the argument that removing a knee from someone's back in order to allow the lungs to fill with air would somehow put the officers lives in danger. There were several officers. IIRC, at least 5 or 6 standing around him. He was unarmed, obese, and as has been pointed out, an asthmatic. He wasn't a threat. Even when standing he threw no punches, nor made any movements to attack the officers. They could have had the human decency to make sure he could breathe.

The police officers didn't know this, David. Why do you keep stressing a point that was unknown at the time?

He was a threat to the business owners losing business because of his presence. He needed to be removed. It is a disturbance to them.

I notice on the video he didn't "willingly" walk away from the location. He threw his arms out telling them to leave him alone. That is a threat to a police officer.

The point of posting the article was to counter your blanket statement that no one can speak if they're being choked. That's not always correct.

Then don't make the blanket statement that they can always speak when being choked. That's not always correct.

On the situation in general, I do believe the officer(s) were negligent in their takedown of Garner - both the cop who had his arm around his neck and the one who was kneeling on his back. I also believe the paramedics, who were on video doing basically nothing to assist Garner, should be held accountable in any civil suit.

It doesn't matter what your or my opinion is, David. The GJ didn't agree with you. They are the deciding voice.

The article at the link below lays the blame for the GJ decision on the ME and her description of the cause of death.

Allegedly, per the article, everyone involved - prosecutors and even the cop himself - were stunned the GJ did not bring a true bill against him.

"The Staten Island prosecutors felt that criminally negligent homicide - carrying a maximum four-year prison term - was the most applicable charge.

That's because Pantaleo and the other officers failed to stop their actions when Garner repeatedly said he could not breathe and did not "perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that Garner would die from his actions.

On Aug 1, the acting Medical Examiner Barbara Sampson - who was permanently elevated to the post last week by Mayor Bill de Blasio - ruled Garner's death a homicide, caused by a police chokehold."

"But rather than providing clarity, the ME's findings complicated matters for prosecutors, sources say."

"Yet in the Garner case, the ME not only ruled his death a homicide, but she took the unusual step of saying that the "method" was a police chokehold, experts and insiders say.

That would require hard proof, starting with sophisticated medical evidence in the neck of specific broken bones and damaged tissue, and ending with certainty that Pantaleo used a chokehold barred by the NYPD."

Source Link

Because juries must follow specific rules regarding charges and how to rule on them, I find it completely believable that the GJ would have given a true bill had it not been for the ME's stated cause of death requiring evidence of crushed or broken bones in the alleged suspect's neck.

It's important to note that the Prosecutor felt Pantaleo's (and the other officers) failure to stop and assist Garner to insure he was able to breathe could be deemed as criminally negligent behavior.

"Allegedly" is the operative word. I'll leave it there.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, you are speculating that is what happened. You simply can't prove it.

WADR, everyone here is speculating. You can't prove I'm wrong, I can't prove I'm right. As with other things, I'm just stating it's possible officers could forget or dismiss training or allow emotions/adrenaline to get the best of them.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The police officers didn't know this, David. Why do you keep stressing a point that was unknown at the time?

Let me try to water this down for you. My point was not that the officers knew this. I was simply describing the alleged suspect and his condition.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He was a threat to the business owners losing business because of his presence. He needed to be removed. It is a disturbance to them.

You're speculating here. Where is your proof that the owners were losing business or that he was being a disturbance?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I notice on the video he didn't "willingly" walk away from the location. He threw his arms out telling them to leave him alone. That is a threat to a police officer.

That's pretty lame. He didn't make any offensive motions towards the officers.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Then don't make the blanket statement that they can always speak when being choked. That's not always correct.

Please show where I made that alleged blanket statement. I never said they can "always" speak when being choked. Never. Not once. I've only said it's possible. I never said "always." You made the blanket statement with "The bottom line is that if you are being choked out, you cannot speak as much to clearly say, 'I can't breathe'. So, don't tell me this police officer was choking Garner." It's possible. Not always, but it IS possible.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It doesn't matter what your or my opinion is, David. The GJ didn't agree with you. They are the deciding voice.

And per the article, the Prosecution lays the blame for the lack of a true bill on the ME. They felt Pantaleo should have been given a true bill for criminally negligent homicide.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

"Allegedly" is the operative word. I'll leave it there.

Allegedly was my word, not from the article.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

Then you need to see a psychologist for multiple personality disorder.

You defended the cops and their methods post after post, then you suddenly post that he should be tried for negligence.

I argued that what the cop did was NOT an illegal chokehold..and it wasn't. That does not mean that a legal restraint can't be misused


I argued against the notion of malice or intent vs the claims of murder and execution. I argued against illegal chokehold of the air way vs the kind of chokehold that restrains the head and presses against the arteries

Had you followed any of my links and posts with objectivity, you would have seen that

That does NOT argue against the idea of negligence.

"A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct). "

Even in conducting an authorized procedure one can be negligent. I also argued that it should not be just this one cop, but others involved.

the only thing I argued about this one cop was that what he did was not the kind of chokehold that cuts off the air way AND that he had been trained to use it as a restraint. IF that is true then we need to look at those who set policy

So my argument is and has been that this cop did not execute or murder Eric

In order for that to be the case there has to be intent. Because of Eric's preexisting conditions that contributed to the death, it's clear the police did not seek to kill Eric

Ive said that several times but you are so focused on trying to win an argument that you have distorted everything I have said

You have tried to twist what I have said into me claiming the cops had nothing to do with it, that Eric died from asthma. That is untrue as I have said many times that all factors contributed

When you got called and caught for that lie, you obfuscated again and made it about me using the word contribute as if I said all three factors contributed EQUALLY.

You have been doing that for days now and you still continue. This latest stream of hooey about me needing a shrink is just adding to your shame

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

This



does not equal this

My gosh...you are a desperate man. lol

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Fyi, I felt it was a flip flop too. But with prax denying that, I'm sure I must have misread some of the past posts he made on that topic.

Since I never said the cop was innocent of any wrong doing, its not a flip flop. The Narrative has been about people claiming murder and that he just executed the man.

Here is what I have argued
It was not an illegal chokehold
It was not murder
It was not an execution
This one cop should not be the sole person questioned
The Pathologist says the cops actions were relevant but that Eric's condition contributed
We have to look at intent

NONE of that removes the possibility of Negligence

If you watch that video I posted, the move he made could not have killed him, however it has to be DONE CORRECTLY and it's possibly the cops arm could have moved and pressed the air way enough to restrict breathing

It's also possible that the restraint was held too long

It's also possible that as soon as Eric started to complain about breathing that the police stopping and getting him help faster could have saved his life

I did not say he was guilty of negligence or anything else. BTW I think maybe the legal term Im looking for is
reckless endangerment

Not necessarily criminal negligence.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

I wish he'd put aside his issue to actually answer the question. After all the posts defending the officer and his actions, why does he believe the officer was negligent? It's not logical. If the cop was doing what he was trained to do, and if he did everything properly within department guidelines, then why is he negligent? It doesn't make sense.

I defended only this

That it was not an illegal chokehold
He was not the only one who should have been charged with something
It was not a murder (intent) or an execution.

I believe there is a possibility of the over all actions of all the cops, the supervisor on scene and the actions or inaction of the EMS in the failure to save this man.

I also believe it's possible the neck restraint may have been misused AFTER initial contact but not by intent. In other words, in the ensuing struggle the officers arm may have shifted to a position that it was not supposed to be in

My concerns has been with the notion of this just being a murder or an execution

The problem David is we have several subtopics going on and several different people arguing

BTW I never argued he was guilty of negligence. I just believe it should be on the table

[Praxeas]

Why can't his not being able to breath be asthma triggered by the neck/chest compressions?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Since I never said the cop was innocent of any wrong doing, its not a flip flop. The Narrative has been about people claiming murder and that he just executed the man.

Here is what I have argued
It was not an illegal chokehold
It was not murder
It was not an execution
This one cop should not be the sole person questioned
The Pathologist says the cops actions were relevant but that Eric's condition contributed
We have to look at intent

NONE of that removes the possibility of Negligence

If you watch that video I posted, the move he made could not have killed him, however it has to be DONE CORRECTLY and it's possibly the cops arm could have moved and pressed the air way enough to restrict breathing

It's also possible that the restraint was held too long

It's also possible that as soon as Eric started to complain about breathing that the police stopping and getting him help faster could have saved his life

I did not say he was guilty of negligence or anything else. BTW I think maybe the legal term Im looking for is
reckless endangerment

Not necessarily criminal negligence.

See I knew I'd misunderstood!

Personally, I don't think there was enough there for negligence. ive not looked into wreck less endangerment though.