• 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

There are no laws in the State of New York prohibiting the police from using a choke-hold

Except their own policies. In short, we're arguing that if the police are banned from doing something, then that something is still lawful for them to use. That's just plainly absurd.

though there are in other jurisdictions. As a matter of policy the NYPD prohibits the use. So the answer would be no they cannot. However because it isn't illegal for them to use one a criminal proceeding based solely on the choke-hold will go nowhere. It becomes an NYPD administrative issue and the most the NYPD can do is fire the guy and possibly take action against his pension. That's it.

Of course the family, and should, and will, bring a civil action, but that's against the city - the taxpayers - and not the cop. The NYPD pays a hundred million or so a year to settle civil cases against it. If for no other reason the people should be screaming for change because of that alone.

Of course the police are treated differently. They ultimately cannot do their job if they can't force compliance with their legal orders. That doesn't mean that force should be first resort as it was here. It should be the last resort.

The wider point is that if someone without a badge had done this, it wouldn't be justified. There is no blurry line here about whether the person had a gun. There is no blurry line about whether this person attacked the police. There is no blurry line about who attacked who. So why is the exception being made for cops here?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I don't think you read your posts again. You made claims in both of them that I didn't think the cops did anything wrong, and my posts say something completely different. You even brought Libertarianism into this somehow. This isn't a Libertarian/Republican/Democrat issue for me. My political lean is irrelevant. This is about what the GJ saw, what the tape shows, and whether the cop committed a crime (not a blatant disregard for his employer's policy).

If that's what you thought, it's on you. But that wasn't my intention. :shrug:
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Except their own policies. In short, we're arguing that if the police are banned from doing something, then that something is still lawful for them to use. That's just plainly absurd.



The wider point is that if someone without a badge had done this, it wouldn't be justified. There is no blurry line here about whether the person had a gun. There is no blurry line about whether this person attacked the police. There is no blurry line about who attacked who. So why is the exception being made for cops here?

A Grand Jury can not hand down an indictment to an NYPD officer for breaking his employer's banned policy.

You're asking another poster why cops have more leeway with suspects that you or I would have. Why don't you ask the Justice Department to change the overarching laws so that no cop can' touch, grab, force down, or brandish a gun on any suspect?

You have to already know that the cops are allowed by law to deal with something in a different way than citizens are. There are reasons why we can't police ourselves as a society, I assume.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Except their own policies. In short, we're arguing that if the police are banned from doing something, then that something is still lawful for them to use. That's just plainly absurd.



The wider point is that if someone without a badge had done this, it wouldn't be justified. There is no blurry line here about whether the person had a gun. There is no blurry line about whether this person attacked the police. There is no blurry line about who attacked who. So why is the exception being made for cops here?

There's nothing absurd about it. I don't know that the issue has ever come before the state legislature or the NYC Council but if it did they decided to leave it to the PD to decide whether the use of the choke-hold made sense or not. The NYPD decided it didn't make sense for them. Other NY State police agencies may have decided otherwise.

The NYPD, like any other organization, is free to make rules governing how its employees discharge their duties. They cannot tell officers to do something that is illegal but they can restrict the legal things that they can do. Every employer does that.


Again the exception is made is for cops, in general, because if they can't force someone to do something they cannot do their jobs. If they go to arrest someone and that person just walks away how are they to deal with it if they can't legally grab the guy and cuff him? That doesn't mean that they can use excessive force and the there are legal (though rarely successful) and administrative remedies when cops go overboard. The difference is that you and I can never legally initiate the use force. We are automatically wrong. The police aren't necessarily automatically wrong.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

A Grand Jury can not hand down an indictment to an NYPD officer for breaking his employer's banned policy.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that if the policy is banned by the employer, and it's illegal for another person who isn't a cop to use it, how can it be legal for cops to use it?

You're asking another poster why cops have more leeway with suspects that you or I would have. Why don't you ask the Justice Department to change the overarching laws so that no cop can' touch, grab, force down, or brandish a gun on any suspect?

You have to already know that the cops are allowed by law to deal with something in a different way than citizens are. There are reasons why we can't police ourselves as a society, I assume.

Yes, and I'm stating it's a double standard.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that if the policy is banned by the employer, and it's illegal for another person who isn't a cop to use it, how can it be legal for cops to use it?



Yes, and I'm stating it's a double standard.

You're asking why is it legal for cops to use force, and why it isn't legal for private citizens to use force.

Seriously?

I can't justify that with an answer. Like I said, lobby the Justice Department to make it so that cops can't ever, ever use any kind of force at their discretion, and please let me know how you make out with that.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

There's nothing absurd about it. I don't know that the issue has ever come before the state legislature or the NYC Council but if it did they decided to leave it to the PD to decide whether the use of the choke-hold made sense or not. The NYPD decided it didn't make sense for them. Other NY State police agencies may have decided otherwise.

The NYPD, like any other organization, is free to make rules governing how its employees discharge their duties. They cannot tell officers to do something that is illegal but they can restrict the legal things that they can do. Every employer does that.


Again the exception is made is for cops, in general, because if they can't force someone to do something they cannot do their jobs. If they go to arrest someone and that person just walks away how are they to deal with it if they can't legally grab the guy and cuff him? That doesn't mean that they can use excessive force and the there are legal (though rarely successful) and administrative remedies when cops go overboard. The difference is that you and I can never legally initiate the use force. We are automatically wrong. The police aren't necessarily automatically wrong.

No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to initiate contact. What is being questioned is how some forms of contact can be banned, illegal outside of uniform and still be legal for them to use. That's like saying: Okay, well you're banned from driving without glasses, but it's not illegal if you do, and you won't get a ticket either.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You're asking why is it legal for cops to use force, and why it isn't legal for private citizens to use force.

Nope. I'm asking why a policy that bans the police from using X, still means that X is legal, even though it isn't legal for the rest of the population. Would it not fall outside of what is legal for them to use if they aren't allowed to use it?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

If justice is killing an unarmed man for suspicion of selling loose cigarettes - God help us all.

Cops are not really concerned with justice, they are concerned with authority.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to initiate contact. What is being questioned is how some forms of contact can be banned, illegal outside of uniform and still be legal for them to use. That's like saying: Okay, well you're banned from driving without glasses, but it's not illegal if you do, and you won't get a ticket either.

That example isn't good because generally the says that you have to comply with the rules established by the state Department of Motor Vehicles so by driving without glasses you are breaking the law because you're not complying
with the state DMV regulations.

This is a better parallel. I can legally carry a firearm in my home state. My employer forbids bringing firearms onto the work premises. If I do so it is not a crime. I cannot go to jail for it. I can be fired.

Work rules and laws are two different things. Do you contend that an employer cannot restrict the legal actions of employees who are discharging their duties?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You are making unfounded allegations. In fact I would describe what you are doing as defaming the officers.
1) There is really no question that Pantaleo used a choke hold.
2) There is no question that choke holds were banned by the NYPD.
3) The grand jury doesn't evaluate whether an officer violated its code of conduct. It determines if he broke the law.
4) Since you missed it: The medical examiner ruled Garner's death as a homicide. He is still facing a disciplinary hearing, and possible federal charges.

A grand jury heard the testimony and brought no charges. So you are committing a serious civil offense.
lol

Aside from the fact that you have no understanding of defamation, and no recognition that what you're suggesting violates my right to free speech: If Pantaleo thinks I'm defaming him, he can sue me.


"This case cries out for an anti-tax rebellion. Ultimately it is liberalism that is at the root of this man's death."
"It's the taxman's fault!" is the most absurd meme of this entire sad affair.
 
Re: NYPD officer in Eric Garner chokehold death not indicted by Staten Island grand j

You have not seen the evidence.
Neither have you.


Are you accusing the prosecutor of corruption? Or malfeasance?
I'm saying:

• Under ordinary circumstances, grand juries are a rubber stamp.
• Just about the only people who ever get a pass from a GJ are police officers.
• The video clearly showing an officer using a banned choke hold, and the medical examiner classified it as a homicide. If an officer can't get indicted given just that evidence alone, then something in the system is seriously broken.
• It is entirely plausible that the prosecutor threw the case. After all, he has to work with the NYPD, and that's going to be difficult if he has to vigorously prosecute a NYPD officer.

There should also be no question that any American citizen has the right to question and criticize a grand jury proceeding.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Ask the officer. What we know and the evidence clearly shows is that the officer announced his intent and Garner resisted. Thats going to result in an arrest every time. But be honest. That HAS to be one of the tamest take downs you have witnessed of a subject twice the officers size and resisting arrest. He swung his arms and refused to comply, another officer got him around the neck and shoulders and in 8 seconds he was down and that same officer held his head and shoulders down while he was cuffed.

He is dead because he refused to comply with the law enforcement officer. I dont know if he is guilty or not...but I DO know he had some 30 prior arrests, and many of them were felonies. If he wasnt guilty, he should have gone to court. Its not like he didnt know the way there.
Why did the officer announce his intent? On what grounds? And this 'tamest take down', totally unnecessary by the way, killed the man. There was no apparent need to even talk with Eric Garner, much less 'take him down'.

If his 30 prior arrests were anything like selling cigarettes on the street then the NYPD should look around for something more constructive to do.

Here's what the guy who shot the video, who appeared in front of the GJ, had to say. Eric Garner grand jury rigged, says man who filmed chokehold - NY Daily News
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Just watch. Already we are seeing increased meddling by the Justice Department into local crimes.
I am watching, and I see no sign whatsoever of anyone nationalizing any police force. You're just scaremongering, and unconvincingly so.


I doubt you can make that case.
How about pointing to the dozens of nations that don't use grand juries, and are not tyrannies?

Or are you classifying any nation whose Constitution you personally did not write as "tyrannical?"


If a prosecutor can bring serious charges against anyone for any reason without the brakes of overwatching citizens then the conditions for tyranny are set.
News flash! Prosecutors can get ANYONE indicted. 162,000 federal cases were brought before grand juries in 2010; only 11 of them declined an indictment. That's less than 0.01% of cases. Again: It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did | FiveThirtyEight

The idea that a grand jury is a check on anything, let alone prosecutorial powers, is a joke.


There was no tyranny in that particular death unless it was the tyranny of too much fried chicken and gravy. Police did not kill him with impunity. He died because he was a sick, out of shape fatass who resisted arrest.
And yet, he was breathing and talking before a police officer used a banned choke hold on him, and another officer compressed his chest.

The tyranny, by the way, is that police officers can apparently kill citizens in police custody with impunity. How can you possibly view that as a beneficial to anyone?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Al sharpton owes 4 million in back taxes, Eric Garner much less. Think about that.

To my knowledge, Eric Garner didn't owe any taxes - he was selling cigarettes illegally. Every legal entity in NYC that sells cigarettes has a license to do so and sells them in packages that are sealed and come directly from the distributor. If they sell to a minor or break open packs and sell them separately, they will also be charged and potentially subject to arrest if they do it enough times.

If the IRS issued a warrant for Al Sharpton's arrest, I'm pretty sure big Al would glory in the publicity and enjoy being handcuffed on the streets. If big Al decided to resist arrest, he might very well also find himself face planted into the pavement and forcibly detained.

Equating Al Sharpton to Eric Garner does nothing to advance the discussion. But that's just my view
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hi Grant.
In NYC a pack of cigarettes costs between 11-13 bucks due to all the taxes placed on them. This has created a black market problem for NYC where people will purchase cigarettes in another state for much less and bring them back to NY and sell them much cheaper by the pack or loosies for a few bucks versus putting out 13 for a full pack. In January 2014 tough new penalties for selling untaxed cigarettes took effect in New York City. The city’s highest-ranking uniformed cop, Philip Banks, issued an order to crack down on loosie sales days before Garner died.
McQUILLAN: Lessons from Eric Garner's death and cigarette taxes - Washington Times
Garner has been arrested several times for selling untaxed cigarettes. Reports state the NYPD have confirmed he was part of an organized ring black marketing cigarettes. And that he had been under surveillance for some time to find out the name of his supplier . It's the merchants in the area that reported Garner to the police for his activities as he moved from one location to another to set up his business in front of their stores.
BREAKING: NYPD Confirms #EricGarner Was A Member of Organized Crime in Staten Island - GotNews
While these laws on cigarettes and the punishment/fines seem rather over the top to a lot of people, you got to understand this is NYC where Mayor Bloomberg went after cigarettes hiking taxes and banning smoking almost everywhere and was responsible for the harsher penalties that went into effect this year for selling untaxed cigarettes. Out of Garner's 30 some arrests, around 6 arrests were for selling untaxed cigarettes.
Thanks for that Vesper, and it's truly appreciated.

It seems the world is going mad and we're all adjusting to it, and always making ourselves a little bit more crazy during the process. If we can write off this man's life because of suspicion of selling untaxed cigarettes then there really isn't much more can be said that doesn't bring in the much larger picture of where this all might lead.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Can the NYPD place you in a chokehold? Yes or no answer.



And that's kind of the point. This case highlights the inconsistencies in how the police are treated and seen. If a bouncer had done the same to a patron they felt threatened them, it would be assault - cut and clear case. Yet a badge makes a difference in this case. Why?

It's amazing to me that you don't know the difference between the legal authority granted police officers and the rights of a bouncer.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

To my knowledge, Eric Garner didn't owe any taxes - he was selling cigarettes illegally. Every legal entity in NYC that sells cigarettes has a license to do so and sells them in packages that are sealed and come directly from the distributor. If they sell to a minor or break open packs and sell them separately, they will also be charged and potentially subject to arrest if they do it enough times.


Selling untaxed cigarettes is a avoiding taxes, albiet on a much lesser scale than the sharpton. selling loosies is a finable misdemeanor but the law on loosies is dubious.


If the IRS issued a warrant for Al Sharpton's arrest, I'm pretty sure big Al would glory in the publicity and enjoy being handcuffed on the streets. If big Al decided to resist arrest, he might very well also find himself face planted into the pavement and forcibly detained.

Equating Al Sharpton to Eric Garner does nothing to advance the discussion. But that's just my view


It points out the absurdity of the situation that a man died for suspicion of selling single untaxed loose cigarettes is being defended publically by another person who owed more than 4 million.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Selling untaxed cigarettes is a avoiding taxes, albiet on a much lesser scale than the sharpton. selling loosies is a finable misdemeanor but the law on loosies is dubious.





It points out the absurdity of the situation that a man died for suspicion of selling single untaxed loose cigarettes is being defended publically by another person who owed more than 4 million.

The point is that it's the selling of loose cigarettes that is the crime, not the non-collection of taxes on those sales of loose cigarettes.

I'll grant you, however, that it is NYC's lust for tax dollars that causes it's police officers to go to such extremes to enforce such laws.

Al Sharpton is scum, in my view, but his defense of Garner should be based on the circumstances of the event and not be tainted by his personal legal issues.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Somehow I'm doubting Charlie Rangel would be tackled by 5 Capital police and administered a choke hold until he's handcuffed. Just guess tho.... :mrgreen:

If they do, I hope the cameras are there to record the incident.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The point is that it's the selling of loose cigarettes that is the crime, not the non-collection of taxes on those sales of loose cigarettes.

Can you cite the specific city or state code that makes selling loosies a crime?

I'll grant you, however, that it is NYC's lust for tax dollars that causes it's police officers to go to such extremes to enforce such laws.

More than that. diblasio instructed the police commissioner to crack down on it. now that he has, diblasio throws him under the bus.


Al Sharpton is scum, in my view, but his defense of Garner should be based on the circumstances of the event and not be tainted by his personal legal issues.


He should simply walk into the hudson imo.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It's amazing to me that you don't know the difference between the legal authority granted police officers and the rights of a bouncer.

If they're banned from using the procedure, how can they also have the authority to use it? I'll wait for you to figure that out.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Garner has been arrested several times for selling untaxed cigarettes. Reports state the NYPD have confirmed he was part of an organized ring black marketing cigarettes.
Reports by what can only be described as a biased news source.

By the way, he was accused of selling loosies -- i.e. single cigarettes from a pack. Wow. Obviously, he was a violent career criminal. :doh


While these laws on cigarettes and the punishment/fines seem rather over the top to a lot of people....
Or they don't.

We should note that selling single cigarettes is not a capital crime.


Mayor Bloomberg went after cigarettes hiking taxes and banning smoking almost everywhere and was responsible for the harsher penalties that went into effect this year for selling untaxed cigarettes.
Thanks for ignoring the actual issue.

Garner wasn't killed by cigarette laws. He died from a choke hold and chest compressions while the police were trying to take him into custody. He wasn't trying to flee, he wasn't attacking the officers, he wasn't accused of a violent crime.

On November 22nd, a NYPD officer used a baton on a 20 year old fare-jumper named Donovan Lawson. Rather than pay $2.75 for a subway fare, he jumped the turnstile. In the process of the arrest, the officer hit the man in the head with a baton; pulled on his hoodie when Lawson tried to lurch away from the officer.

NYPD officer smashes alleged fare beater in head with baton - NY Daily News

Even if you consider this to be fully justified, it shows that any offense, however trivial, can result in a violent response by a NYPD officer. Meanwhile, NYPD officers are rarely reprimanded for abuse.

The causal factor here isn't the law that's broken, or even the response by the suspect. It's that the city has turned a blind eye to police tactics.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

If they're banned from using the procedure, how can they also have the authority to use it? I'll wait for you to figure that out.

Wut? He was (correctly) pointing out that you're trying to give a bouncer the same rights to stop a criminal or suspect in the act of something as the cops have.
 
Back
Top Bottom