No Indictment in Chokehold Death [W:1903,2680]

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Erod said:

No, the police aren't targeting them. Big government New York is, if anyone.

Local store owners complained about Gardner, and the police responded. That's not targeting. That's serving the local businesses who Gardner was affecting by selling cigarettes illegally in competition with them.

Click to expand...

If NY politicians aka government hadn't put such a heavy tax on cigarette packs in the first place... then perhaps there wouldn't be a demand or a market for "lucie's" in the second place....and people like Gardner wouldn't be criminals for selling a single cigarettes in the third place...and then dying for it in the fourth place.

It all seems to point back to some stupid law passed by politicians that makes criminals out of innocent people and dependent on the penal/ welfare system for the rest of their lives. That's if it doesn't kill them first.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Well, they could hold a hug-your-neighbour day throughout NYC.

I am not holding my breath for that one though.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:

No, but apparently being an obese criminal on the edge of a heart attack while continuing to commit crimes is.

Click to expand...

If you're saying that Garner deserved to die... then that's messed up, man.

The officer broke no law but did break department policy.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's clear that Pantaleo "broke no law." The prosecutor failed to get him indicted. Considering that an extremely small number of grand juries decline to indict, that is, at a minimum, a very strange outcome.

The internal police hearing for that was held until the GJ gave it's decision. I'm betting he loses his job now that the press and the ugly racists/community organizers are involved.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure that his losing his job would have nothing to do with him using a banned choke hold, which led to the death of an unarmed and non-violent citizen.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

roguenuke said:

His actions and words showed that he believed he was being placed under arrest, by the police, even if he didn't believe he should have been. There is no question there, no ambiguity or question about what is happening, especially during the actual resistance.

Click to expand...

Heya Roguenuke. I wonder why this cop is saying something about a lawful order?


Pat Lynch of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association went on to say, "We believe, however, that if he had not resisted the lawful order of the police officers placing him under arrest, this tragedy would not have occurred.".....snip~

Medical Examiner Rules Eric Garner's Death a Homicide, Says He Was Killed By Chokehold | NBC New York

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Moot said:

If NY politicians aka government hadn't put such a heavy tax on cigarette packs in the first place... then perhaps there wouldn't be a demand or a market for "lucie's" in the second place....and people like Gardner wouldn't be criminals for selling a single cigarettes in the third place...and then dying for it in the fourth place.

It all seems to point back to some stupid law passed by politicians that makes criminals out of innocent people and dependent on the penal/ welfare system for the rest of their lives.

Click to expand...

Then of course when a criminal tries to move on with their life. Don't repeat your criminal behavior, but no, I won't let you move on with your life. Just somehow survive and not be a criminal, you animal. Gee, I wonder why he kept selling untaxed cigarettes. Hmmm...

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:

You're being purposely obtuse and dodgy. This is actually very unlike you rogue. Answer a question: Does a person have a right to resist if they believe they're being assaulted by cops? Yes or no answer.

Click to expand...

I'll answer, yes they do have that "right". However, it's a risk, because most folks really don't know what they're talking about when they say they were assaulted by police. If it turns out, which is likely, that the police are doing their legitimate duty, then you go down hard for resisting.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

NO1 said:

There is somthing wrong in the legal system if the officer got away with it.

Click to expand...

No, not really -- It works perfectly. America views crime as an 'exception' to the higher righteous path. Thus when our white cops kill blacks and then exonerate themselves for it, the blame can be placed on the failure of the black person to be living that holy righteous path, rather than it being understood that (1) people are products of their circumstances -- i.e. the cyclical nature of poverty -- or (2) that we have a systemic corruption of our police forces -- i.e. the Blue Code of Silence.

Then we whites can all shake our heads and blame black people for being forced to live in slums with no jobs, where the local schools are sunk by how this country funds education (through property taxes of the local community, i.e. the slum) and where the streets are full of desperate impoverished, uneducated people doing their best to stay afloat.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Texmex said:

I guess if while we are walking down the street, any police officer can simply walk over and grab us. Then we are supposed to instantly freeze and allow ourselves to be man-handled or be thrown down and choked to death. :roll:

Click to expand...

The police junkies are adamant that it is every citizen's duty to submit to being beaten to death by the police. Police can violently attack anyone as their way of first informing someone they are under arrest - even if for an administrative or minor misdemeanor alleged offense based upon alleged 3rd hand verbal information by someone whose name is unknown - and if the person makes any attempt to shield their body or prevent being physically harmed or killed by the police - that person is committing the crime of "resisting arrest." If not, still the police were assaulting the person because otherwise the person might resist.

Putting in real perspective... if a police officer says someone - whose name they didn't even take - told him the parking meter you were at was expired when you drove away - later multiple police officers could attack you without warning, throw you to the concrete, one put his full body weight on your head into the concrete, another his body weight on your back, while chocking you...

... as their method of informing you that you are under arrest and to prevent you from resisting that arrest.

People who are extreme police junkies like that are very, very frightened people. They want a total police state of absolute police powers because they are so very afraid themselves. Nor can they tolerate any person is doesn't share their level of terror and submissiveness.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:

I'll answer, yes they do have that "right".

Click to expand...

Ah good, excellent. Then if Eric Garner was not informed that he was being arrested, he had a legitimate right to defend himself against what he felt was the harassment of his person and the NYPD were in the wrong. :shrug:

However, it's a risk, because most folks really don't know what they're talking about when they say they were assaulted by police. If it turns out, which is likely, that the police are doing their legitimate duty, then you go down hard for resisting.

Click to expand...

Let's play the real vs. fake game! If what you consider to be a threat doesn't match up to the narrative apologists want, it's not really a threat.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:

You're being purposely obtuse and dodgy. This is actually very unlike you rogue. Answer a question: Does a person have a right to resist if they believe they're being assaulted by cops? Yes or no answer.

Click to expand...

Not if they know they are being detained/arrested for a crime or suspicion of one. This could not be legitimately viewed as "assault". Excessive force, possibly. But it is wrong to claim some crap about this being a criminal assault by police, giving him the right to resist.

Evidence? Early in the video I saw, the cop said that he saw him sell something to someone in a red shirt indicating this wasn't just a guy that thought he was getting randomly jumped by a guy/group of guys that were also cops, but rather they were stopping and questioning him about some illegal activity. This doesn't mean that the cops didn't lie or weren't making it up, but it does mean that they could provide evidence that they had at least a reasonable suspicion he was involved in something illegal, which gives them reason to detain, which he was resisting, giving them reason to attempt arrest, without necessarily requiring immediate announcement of that arrest.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:

BEFORE THE TAPE BEGINS. Can you see it now?

Death of Eric Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Heya CB. :2wave: Oh, and here they do say he swatted their arms away, huh? I'll bet the 23 Jurors saw that as resisting.

Because everytime you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me [garbled] Selling cigarettes. I'm minding my business, officer, I'm minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time, please just leave me alone."[25] Garner swatted their arms away, saying, "Don't touch me, please." He was then put in a chokehold or headlock from behind by officer Daniel Pantaleo, in order to be subdued.....

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

polgara said:

Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

I guess the media has been told to show us that people are being targeted by the police, even though all concerned have broken the law in some way, or the police would not be involved. Why the big push to demonize policemen now? They're still the ones I would call if I have someone trying to break into my house, and I'm glad they're just a phone call away, but then I'm not out causing problems either! It will be interesting to see what decision will be reached in this case, since this man died as a result of the way he was handled. Would a stun gun have caused the same result?

Click to expand...

Howdy P!

Yes, there appears to be a new wave of "victimization" in this country. In the 60's we were trying to overcome adversity. Sure, people advocated for the rights of women and the rights of blacks but there was a general presumption that blacks and women would also strive to overcome those things that were holding them back. It was a two sided effort.

However, at that same time there arose an academic cadre that discovered that there was a lot of power and money to be had in "victim assistance". If you were a good "victim's advocate" or "community organizer" you could get a whole lot of say in how much money the government should provide to assist the cause of equality. You could also have a lot of say in how and to whom that money got distributed.

It wasn't too long after that realization that it became apparent to some that all these people that were being helped made up one heck of a bloc of voters and how better to secure votes than by the old carrot and stick routine? You could hand out "assistance" with one hand but there would always be the understanding that disagreement with the system would mean that assistance would be at risk.

The last revelation in the chain was that if this voting bloc could be expanded quite a bit if only more people were victims of "inequality" and needed assistance. That's where we are now. There is a MASSIVE effort to get people to believe that they are victims of something. Blacks are supposed to be victims of whites. Gays are supposed to be victims of straights. Atheists are supposed to be victims of theists. Blondes are victims of brunettes. Everyone is a victim of corporations and government is a victim of the people.

Welcome to the 21st Century!!!

It's not what I pictured but it seems to be what I have to deal with.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

jmotivator said:

What I object to is the defacto claim that it was criminal behavior because Gardener died. The number of contributing physical ailments that made a 6'3" 360 man so amazingly frail could not have been known by the arresting officers.

Click to expand...

It's not solely because he died in police custody. It's because the way they restrained him, when he wasn't being in any way violent, both violated NYPD policy and caused his death.

In addition, while keeping in mind that none of us have seen the testimony or evidence presented to the grand jury, it's stunning that the prosecutor was unable to secure an indictment.

I certainly see why people are upset that the indictment was declined.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

roguenuke said:

Not if they know they are being detained/arrested for a crime or suspicion of one. This could not be legitimately viewed as "assault". Excessive force, possibly. But it is wrong to claim some crap about this being a criminal assault by police, giving him the right to resist.

Evidence? Early in the video I saw, the cop said that he saw him sell something to someone in a red shirt indicating this wasn't just a guy that thought he was getting randomly jumped by a guy/group of guys that were also cops, but rather they were stopping and questioning him about some illegal activity. This doesn't mean that the cops didn't lie or weren't making it up, but it does mean that they could provide evidence that they had at least a reasonable suspicion he was involved in something illegal, which gives them reason to detain, which he was resisting, giving them reason to attempt arrest, without necessarily requiring immediate announcement of that arrest.

Click to expand...

Where is this guy with a red shirt? If he saw this guy in a red where in the hell is he? The best the officer was able to do was say he saw this guy that apparently exists, which honestly isn't enough.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:

Ah good, excellent. Then if Eric Garner was not informed that he was being arrested, he had a legitimate right to defend himself against what he felt was the harassment of his person and the NYPD were in the wrong. :shrug:

Click to expand...

False conclusion on your part. You asked a specific question and got a specific answer. Can't apply it generally. Who said he didn't know they were placing him under arrest?

Hatuey said:

Let's play the real vs. fake game! If what you consider to be a threat doesn't match up to the narrative apologists want, it's not really a threat.

Click to expand...

Let's not play, you're not very good at it.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

will the GJ testimony be released in this case?

it would probably clear up a lot of issue people seem to have with this case

he had been cited/arrested for the same thing what 30 times already

he was tired of the cops "hassling him"

but he wasnt tired of breaking the law

the event is tragic, but i dont see any crime here

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

MMC said:

Heya Roguenuke.

I wonder why this cop is saying something about a lawful order?


Pat Lynch of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association went on to say, "We believe, however, that if he had not resisted the lawful order of the police officers placing him under arrest, this tragedy would not have occurred.".....snip~

Medical Examiner Rules Eric Garner's Death a Homicide, Says He Was Killed By Chokehold | NBC New York

Click to expand...

No clue. Maybe they something about arresting him before the video started, leading to the camera getting turned on. After all there had to be some reason the cop pointed out that he saw him do something (whether a false claim or mistake, it still came from somewhere). Backtracking likely conversation leading to that comment would suggest the police had said they were arresting him before the video started.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

MMC said:

Heya CB. :2wave: Oh, and here they do say he swatted their arms away, huh? I'll bet the 23 Jurors saw that as resisting.

Because everytime you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me [garbled] Selling cigarettes. I'm minding my business, officer, I'm minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time, please just leave me alone."[25] Garner swatted their arms away, saying, "Don't touch me, please." He was then put in a chokehold or headlock from behind by officer Daniel Pantaleo, in order to be subdued.....

Click to expand...

Yeah, the wiki is a changing animal, it has changed since I read it yesterday. Still no mention of what happens between the time the undercover officer approached him and the other police arrive.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

roguenuke said:

Not if they know they are being detained/arrested for a crime or suspicion of one.

Click to expand...

Ummm... was he arrested for a crime? Again, we're going in circles are you're ignoring the giant holes in your argument. First you argue that cops don't have to tell you they're arresting/detaining you: If that's the case then why can't a person resist any police action which has not been identified as being within the constraints of the law?

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Henrin said:

Where is this guy with a red shirt? If he saw this guy in a red where in the hell is he? The best the officer was able to do was say he saw this guy that apparently exists, which honestly isn't enough.

Click to expand...

Don't know, but not relevant to whether or not he was or should have been told he was under arrest except it shows that the cop who mentioned him was giving his reasoning for either detaining or arresting him.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It takes two types of personalities for a society to function:

1. Most people have to be fearful and submissive sheeple. Followers. They need others, power, to tell them what to do and not do. For powerful people to protect them. Limit them. Direct them. This does not necessarily assure harmony though, as there can be more than one power or conflicting powers - such as the 2 political parties of which MOST people are blindly and intensely loyal to one or the other.

Sheeple people MUST be the majority or no society can be formed.

Like society, most people on the forum are in the first category. Granted, they will FURIOUSLY defend and rage on behalf of 1.) their masters and 2.) their sheeple-ness.

2. Independent stubborn people who resist being told what to do merely for being told to do so - people self empowered to various degrees. All human, civil and individual rights originate from such people. This second group will always be a very small percentage of the population.

Conflict in societies - for good or bad - are always battles between those in the 2nd category - as it is only those people who are leaders and independent fighters. However, each side will call upon sheeple to be submissive to them in their fights as a matter of submission loyalty.

In areas of the world where there are MULTIPLE different leadership/power groups of the second category, those regions are in perpetual civil war and revolution - due to how fragmented the sheeple become in who they follow and submit to - including fighting others on their masters' demand.

THUS, you see the furious and desperate claims by sheeple that the justification for killing that father of 6 was he "resisted" being instantly submissive, didn't instantly agree to accusations against him and didn't essentially declare himself under arrest accordingly - as the police had not.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:

Ummm... was he arrested for a crime? Again, we're going in circles are you're ignoring the giant holes in your argument. First you argue that cops don't have to tell you they're arresting/detaining you: If that's the case then why can't a person resist any police action which has not been identified as being within the constraints of the law?

Click to expand...

It is all based on circumstances. The world is not black and white, particularly in matters of the law.

He was being arrested, from the evidence we have. Since it did not appear as if he was free to leave, that would be an arrest.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:

Ummm... was he arrested for a crime? Again, we're going in circles are you're ignoring the giant holes in your argument. First you argue that cops don't have to tell you they're arresting/detaining you: If that's the case then why can't a person resist any police action which has not been identified as being within the constraints of the law?

Click to expand...

Because most people aren't lawyers and can't really tell.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

MMC said:

Heya Moot.

Its not illegal with the law to use a choke hold and not if an officer thought his life was in danger.

Also, in the video Garner raises his hand and slightly pushes the officer back or to hold him up.

Officers Move In

Two officers move to arrest him. Mr. Garner pulls his hands away, again raising the question of resistance. The difference in size between the officers and Mr. Garner is apparent.

Legal issues : Whether Officer Pantaleo felt his life was threatened could also be an issue in whether he acted criminally. If the grand jury viewed Officer Pantaleo’s actions as self-defense, then there would be no crime, said Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Officer Pantaleo Officer Pantaleo said he became fearful when he was wedged between Mr. Garner and the plate glass window of a storefront and felt it buckle.....snip~

Click to expand...

A small jab behind the knee can cause even Andre the Giant to lose his balance.


Officer Pantaleo was waiting behind the camera and ran in to join the fray. His life was never in danger as he went directly for the back of Garners neck just like a wolf attacking his prey. In fact, that's what the entire thing looked like... a pack of wolves bringing down a prey that looks to be in shock.

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:

False conclusion on your part. You asked a specific question and got a specific answer. Can't apply it generally. Who said he didn't know they were placing him under arrest?

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence he was? I'll wait.

Let's not play, you're not very good at it.

Click to expand...

You're right. I'm consistent enough to not have to rely on bull**** arguments. But it's funny you admit you're good at the moving goalposts game. Essentially, your argument is: Yes, you have a right to defend yourself against any threatening action from the police... as long that as threatening action is determined by someone else's perception of a threat...