• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

apdst said:
If you resist arrest, do you expect to just walk away?
Click to expand...

If you call that resisting arrest....lame.

He was just telling the cops that they always are harassing. I didn't hear the cop say he was under arrest or have his rights read.

But, who needs rights....?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Texmex said:
Just like Ferguson however, the public can make this officer's life a living hell, if they so desire. I doubt it comes to this because I imagine the Federal government will file charges and prosecute this police officer.
Click to expand...

No, NYC is heavily Democratic as is the police union, prosecutors office and government. There will be a little noise, but the Democratic Justice Department isn't going to actually do anything.

NYC protestors are lazy. They'll forget this within a week. A protest in NYC is just another occasion to have a party at the Central Square. Real protests happen elsewhere. Besides, the NYC PD are absolutely violently brutal against serious protestors.

There are a few PDs you don't mess with. Top of the list? Chicago. NYC. LA. They'll beat you nearly to death (if your healthy, otherwise you die) just for the joys of doing so if you mess with them. Show any displeasure, any hesitation on submissive and the violence begins. It's always been that way. Nothing has changed. What the video shows is the NYPD doing what it has always done to anything but absolute, instance submissiveness.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
Quote the statute in Portland.
Click to expand...

No thanks, you can look for it if you want. I live here so I know how they've kept the homeless druggies from coming back to sit in front of businesses. They trespassed them.

joko104 said:
Again you are claiming anyone can run up behind anyone and put them in a chock hold - because they aren't illegal. Obviously then parents and teachers could to that to troublesome children and husband do so to their wives. Someone ticked you off? Just run up behind the person and jump on their back with a chock hold - perfectly legal according to you.

More absurd claims by the police junkies.
Click to expand...

I made no such claims, that's you trying to make **** up that doesn't at all apply to this event. You can't do most of what you strawman portrays because assault IS against the law, not chokeholds. Duh!
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:
That's irrelevant to the defense being used. Again, your argument is saying that "what if" is a reasonable defense for acting violently. It isn't.



Subduing him for what? Responding rudely to the police? What was it that he did that made cops so scared of him? He didn't want to talk to them? He wasn't under any obligation to.
Click to expand...
In Future America it is illegal to get angry or upset (but still nonviolent). All cops will have guns loaded with prozak. Cheery bye!
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
The question is did any of the officers illegally assault him? THAT is the legal issue. Whether that then is official oppression, civil rights violation, assault, aggravated assault, manslaughter or murder is then the second question.

Someone is beating you up. You break away and flee, getting hit by a car and die. Yes, it was criminal assault. No, it likely found that person had not murdered you.

The REASON the prosecutor and all the police junkies ONLY will bring up whether or not it was murder is to DELIBERATELY avoid the core, fundamental question of was any of the violent actions against him illegal? They do NOT want THAT question asked.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



That's the question that I'd like to hear the answer to.

I find it hard to believe that New York City is even a little bit safer because Mr Garner is dead and no longer selling loose cigarettes.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Texmex said:
This cop has to live with the public, he can't hide out in the Grand Jury room. Karma can be a bitch!
Click to expand...

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your debunked point.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

shrubnose said:
That's the question that I'd like to hear the answer to.

I find it hard to believe that New York City is even a little bit safer because Mr Garner is dead and no longer selling loose cigarettes.
Click to expand...

That's entirely unknowable and speculative.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

jmotivator said:
That isn't a "What if".
Click to expand...

Um... that is a what if. Holy ****, it's the very definition of what if. It's you creating a different scenario that only you seem to be able to control.

And the police action was in response to what? We don't have that video. If the police had justification to arrest Garner and he resisted do you still call it murder?
Click to expand...

Do you realize that it wouldn't make it any less excessive use of force? They approached him over some f'n cigarettes. He didn't resist. He told them he didn't want to speak to them and they immediately tried to subdue him. Over some f'n cigarettes.

Show me another video that fills in the blanks.
Click to expand...

Go look them up. :) Youtube is your friend. Here, I'll even give you what to search for on YouTube: "Unseen Erick Garner videos".
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

vesper said:
As I stated earlier, it is relevant as it shows the reason why there is such a presence of law enforcement in the area. They are not there to harass black people as some like Holder, Obama, and Sharpton claim. They are there because of the volume of criminal activity taking place in that neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
It's amazing to watch you go from saying: Obama said this....... to... I've interpreted what Obama said to mean this.

I don't honestly care how you feel about what Obama said, I asked you to show us where he said what you claim he said. You couldn't do it. I hear crow is kind of tough this time of year. How does it taste?
Click to expand...

Please note the original posted above which you have tried to take out of context.
There are plenty of examples in Obama, Holder and Sharpton's own words that are very divisive and imply a real problem with racist cops and racism in general.
The very idea that the Obama administration has such a relationship with the biggest race-baiter ever (Al Sharpton) is telling. Visiting logs at the WH prove Sharpton to be a regular visitor. And there are plenty of reports from several news sources of Sharpton claiming to be an unpaid advisor to the administration. Here is a link from Politico tell how that came to be.
Revved Up - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO Magazine
His most recent visit to the WH was last Monday, where Obama, Holder, Sharpton and some others got together for a pow wow which resulted in a list of things police forces across the nation needed to change while never once addressing why there is such a need for so many officers in black communities due to their high crime rates. Holder didn't address it but instead making comments of a Federal investigation continuing over Ferguson and now Staten Island from prosecutorial misconduct to racism.
Someone like Sharpton shouldn't even be allowed near the WH unless they like what he says.
Here's a video comprised of 314 times Sharpton in interviews, video from his own show on MSNBC, audio from his radio show where he envokes racism into just about everything.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
DUIs never intend to kill anyone either. In your view, they have the PERFECT defense.
Click to expand...

Hah, no, you silly man. A drunk person has all the evidence they need that driving while impaired can lead to death.

It is 100% certain they ASSAULTED the man - the question only being if it was legal to do so.
Click to expand...

Also false. Legally they are within their right to subdue the man if they believe his actions warrant his arrest and he is resisting. That isn't "assault".

BUT you continue to claim there is only ONE crime anyone can every commit ' manslaughter/murder." Every other criminal change and conviction of any kind against anyone should be dismissed according to you as there are NO other possible crimes anyone can commit.
Click to expand...

Hah, you guys and your absolutist bulls*** are hilarious. You have failed to make a single argument for any crime that the officers should have been indicted on, much less prove an indictment would be likely. You just have this amazingly childish opinion that they should be indicted on something because the video give you the sads.

Step away, formulate your thoughts, determine what charge you think should be brought against the officer(s) and argue it. I will stand here and argue why I don't think a crime was committed, and agree with the GJ decision.

It can not be proven Michael Brown was trying to kill officer Wilson when he slugged him, therefore you stance is that Michael Brown committed no crime.
Click to expand...

You aren't this stupid in real life, are you? Punching a police officer is a crime, idiot, grabbing for his weapon is a crime, resisting arrest is a crime.

BUT, then, Gardener didn't intend to kill anyone either, so therefore in your logic he had committed no crime.
Click to expand...

He resisted arrest which is a crime. What he did that lead to the decision to arrest Garner wound up on the cutting room floor.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:
Guess what, you're wrong. The GJ is made up of the public. The difference between them and the man on the street, the man on the street hasn't seen the evidence. The GJ has.
Click to expand...

You don't understand how Grand Juries are selected, do you?

We can see and learn more evidence than that Grand Jury because there is no filter for us and there was for the GJ.
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

vesper said:
Please note the original posted above which you have tried to take out of context.
Click to expand...

I didn't take anything out of context. You stated Obama had claimed something, and I asked you to substantiate it. You substantiated it with your interpretation of the super secret race baiter extremist language called stating fact. That's hardly substantiating your post. That you have trouble realizing this is your problem. Not mine. As for the rest:

tl/dr.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

dirtpoorchris said:
oh so now he claims that he didnt know wrapping your arm around a mans neck is a choke hold? bwahahahaha holy ****. He was simply "using the neck as leverage" and misunderstood that it happens to be a chokehold? common man... Hes going to have to lie better than that.
Click to expand...

Heya DPC. :2wave: Yeah but how do we get around the GJ seeing a video that shows Garner says.....I can't breathe, and then the officer takes off the chokehold. Only after One Time of hearing Garner say this?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
The stupid, stupid claim that the ONLY potential criminal charge was murder is VERY annoying and was a CHEESY tactic of the DA.

What about "assault?" "Official oppression?" "Abuse?" "Violation of Civil Rights?"

Oh no, no - only debate and deal in absolutes - either it was or wasn't "manslaughter/murder." Let's not even discuss assault, abuse, oppression, civil rights...

Nor even think about any employment sanctions, reprimands either. ONLY the question of it was or wasn't murder. EVERY POSSIBLY WAY to eliminate liability for the man's death.
Click to expand...

Right. Its obvious the cop didnt think his chokehold would kill him. But that doesnt really matter because chokeholds are inherently lethal. Im not allowed to be ignorant of the laws and cops shouldt be allowed to be unchastized simply because they are ignorant.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
Guess what, the grand jury was picked by the same authority that picked the police that is the same authority and institution of the prosecutor and the grand jury only heard what the prosecutor wanted the same-team grand jury to hear about the same-team police officers.

Who represented Gardener to the grand jury? NO ONE.

In fact, the public has MORE access to information than the grand jury did, because there was no prosecutor's filter and censorship.

But don't let reality get in your way of worship of police and government and your hatred of citizen's rights.
Click to expand...

Yes....no cross examination, which is why it is a joke. Indict and have a trial, that way all the information comes out in a real trial.....what is everyone afraid of? Due process?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
You don't understand how Grand Juries are selected, do you?

We can see and learn more evidence than that Grand Jury because there is no filter for us and there was for the GJ.
Click to expand...

From that comment I know you don't have a clue of the selection process or the actual working process. Grand Jurors can request to see whatever evidence they wish and can question witnesses directly. Neither are things the general public or a trial juror can do.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

jmotivator said:
Hah, no, you silly man. A drunk person has all the evidence they need that driving while impaired can lead to death.



Also false. Legally they are within their right to subdue the man if they believe his actions warrant his arrest and he is resisting. That isn't "assault".



Hah, you guys and your absolutist bulls*** are hilarious. You have failed to make a single argument for any crime that the officers should have been indicted on, much less prove an indictment would be likely. You just have this amazingly childish opinion that they should be indicted on something because the video give you the sads.

Step away, formulate your thoughts, determine what charge you think should be brought against the officer(s) and argue it. I will stand here and argue why I don't think a crime was committed, and agree with the GJ decision.



You aren't this stupid in real life, are you? Punching a police officer is a crime, idiot, grabbing for his weapon is a crime, resisting arrest is a crime.

He resisted arrest which is a crime. What he did that lead to the decision to arrest Garner wound up on the cutting room floor.
Click to expand...

But resisting arrest isn't murder! And you claim the only issue about Gardener was whether or not he was murdered.

Your messages are nonsensical. So you are claiming NO, BROWN COULD SLUG OFFICER WILSON, BUT BROWN COULD HAVE PUT OFFICER WILSON IN A CHOCK HOLD" since you claim a chock hold is legal, but slugging someone isn't.

YOU are who claims Gardener was put under arrest as justification for physically assaulting him. The burden of proof is on you.

The crime against Gardener was aggravated assault by the man who jumped on his back with a chock hold.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
You don't understand how Grand Juries are selected, do you?

We can see and learn more evidence than that Grand Jury because there is no filter for us and there was for the GJ.
Click to expand...

In this GJ there was 23 people. 9 of them were black. They were unanimous on the decision.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:
Yes, it also has a cause of death for every killing, that has zero relevance to whether they're homicides or not. :) Thanks for not answering VanceMack.
Click to expand...

There's so much we don't know -- because we just don't understand the process. For instance, does the medical examiner interpret the findings of an autopsy? Or does the person doing the autopsy determine cause of death. Was there any physical evidence on his body that a chokehold had been applied? (He was certainly still breathing...and still TALKING...after the chokehold was released. That's a very important POINT, in my opinion.

In coroner-speak, does homicide mean a CRIME has been committed, or does it simply mean that death was caused by actions of others? A coroner or medical examiner should certainly not be able to arbitrarily decide a crime was committed. I have a real problem with it being designated a homicide. Why wouldn't it be "accidental death"?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

clownboy said:
From that comment I know you don't have a clue of the selection process or the actual working process. Grand Jurors can request to see whatever evidence they wish and can question witnesses directly. Neither are things the general public or a trial juror can do.
Click to expand...

Grand jurors are not selected by the public and the only witnesses they can question are ones the DA puts in front of them.

But tell us, how do you say grand jurors are selected? They are NOT selected like jurors for jury trials. But tell us how you think they are selected.
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

CRUE CAB said:
Yea, that's what everyone says. Yet their limited legal knowledge seems to parallel everything from some show like NYPD Blue or something.
Click to expand...

You need to show me where i am wrong otherwise this is a sinple deflection.

I know more about the law than you think.


In fact you were supposed to cite penal code for me, yet you havent and i have.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

dirtpoorchris said:
Right. Its obvious the cop didnt think his chokehold would kill him. But that doesnt really matter because chokeholds are inherently lethal. Im not allowed to be ignorant of the laws and cops shouldt be allowed to be unchastized simply because they are ignorant.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't "inherently lethal" nor are they illegal. Doesn't have anything to do with ignorance of any law.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hatuey said:
Um... that is a what if. Holy ****, it's the very definition of what if. It's you creating a different scenario that only you seem to be able to control.
Click to expand...

No, no it isn't. I am stating that the Police were operating under the assumption that Eric Garner was a healthy 6'3" 360LB man and used the force necessary to take him down. He died because he was not a healthy person and literally on deaths doorstep and the take down was all it took to push him over the edge.

Do you realize that it wouldn't make it any less excessive use of force? They approached him over some f'n cigarettes. He didn't resist. He told them he didn't want to speak to them and they immediately tried to subdue him. Over some f'n cigarettes.
Click to expand...

They approached him due to a complaint by the business owner. What he did or didn't due to precipitate the altercation is cut out of the video.

Go look them up. :) Youtube is your friend. Here, I'll even give you what to search for on YouTube: "Unseen Erick Garner videos".
Click to expand...

Which translates to "Oh s***! I thought there were other videos!". It's not my job to prove your assertions but I did go look for them and came up empty. Obviously you know right where to find them so I will wait for you to provide them.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

joko104 said:
If you have any evidence of "resisting arrest" why don't you present it?
Click to expand...

He refused to comply. It's on the video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom