• 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

So...no cross interrogation allowed is fine with you? Can you not see the potential for bias?

Evidently not.

:lamo Still refusing to learn about the system you want so much to comment upon. In a grand jury the prosecutor's evidence is cross examined to determine if it's enough to bring charges.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Answers:

The medical examiner/coroner makes a determination of the cause of death. This, of course, can be challenged in court.

"Homicide" does NOT mean a crime was committed. Rather, it means the person was killed by another person or persons. Homicide of itself is not criminal. Criminal homicide is criminal. Think of the phrase "justifiable homicide."

It wasn't accidental death because that death was brought on by the actions of another person or people. For it to be declared "accident" would mean you are claiming that if the assault against Gardener had not happened he would have died at that same time anyway.

"Assault" is also accurate. Gardener WAS in fact assaulted by the police. The legal question is was it a legal assault. That's always why the only legal issues should NOT have been just whether Gardener was criminally killed - but also whether it was legal for the police to assault him. The DA took that off the table - as does nearly everyone on this thread.
Rather, they only want to debate absolute extremes. Murder or not murder - not the overall legalities of it.

Thanks for this. Makes perfect sense. I think it's important for all of us to realize, though, what you said about homicide not necessarily being criminal. I tried to find that on line but couldn't.

Thanks again.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No its not if there isn't enough evidence to show that a crime was committed. By your logic we should also put the ER doctors and nurses that treated Eric Garner on trial because their may have been criminal malpractice... forget that there is no evidence of medical malpractice, isn't a man's life worth a trial?!



Th paramedics were suspended for not aiding garner. To address the red herring
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Reasonable force.
Right. Like taking a man to the ground and handcuffing him. I agree. Unfortunately, in that incident, the guy resisting arrest had about 8,327 too many cheeseburgers and likely had a heart attack.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I told you to look them up and even gave you exactly what to look for. However, since your what if arguments already got destroyed and you've got nothing else to lean on, here is a compilation of 3 (of the videos end to end) by 3 of the people who watched the incident.



First video - 0:00-0:44
Second video - 0:44-2:49
Third video - 2:49-10:24.

You're welcome! :)


Well, that compilation, if you disregard the very stupid text commentary, actually shows he was asked to leave the area. We know that prior to the video he was met by an undercover officer. That and the fact the store had called asking to have the illegal sellers to be cleared out pretty much put a pin in it.

He refused to leave the area wanting to debate and when they tried to cuff him he immediately resisted. He was then taken down.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

When he continued to resist arrest he became a threat.

The cops primary focus in these situations is control. If the suspect appears to be on the verge of becoming uncontrollable then the cop is going to do something to regain that control. Ideally that escalation will be a stepped response and only enough force to regain control will be utilized. In my experience that's exactly what you saw in the video.

The cops said he WASNT being arrested. That my problem with this so why take the guy down at all? If I was on the GJ I would have sent it to trail on that basis alone.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Right. Like taking a man to the ground and handcuffing him. I agree. Unfortunately, in that incident, the guy resisting arrest had about 8,327 too many cheeseburgers and likely had a heart attack.

Actually that is precisely what he died of.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Lmao, what is this? A game? VanceMack, I told you the cause of death was police action. Do you deny that? Or are you going with the asthma did it defense?
I'd love to see the part of the body that stops working when "police action". :lamo

Come on. This isnt that difficult. What was the physiological/cardio/vascular failure that killed him?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Th paramedics were suspended for not aiding garner. To address the red herring

Taking the ill informed side of it: then why weren't they put on trial since they obviously contributed to his death? No Justice, No Peace! :roll:
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Seriously, stop lying, dude.

You said:


Again I ask: Tell me what information you have that the GJ didn't.

Do you have the full coroners report? No? Oh... GJ did.

Do you have a transcript of the trial and all testimony? No? Oh... GJ did.

Do you have ANY information other than the video? No? Oh... GJ did.

Is there any filter for what I can see and hear? NO. The GJ did.
Could I hear what everyone who examined the body said publicly? Yes. The GJ could not.
Can I hear what experts of all kinds have publicly said? Yes. The GJ could not.
Can I hear and see all evidence and information made public by anyone? Yes. Did the GJ? No.

But I got it, to you, those in the criminal justice system are your God. God knows everything. No one else does, only your God does.

Here's the fact again:

"Of about 125,000 adult felony arrests in Manhattan in the last five years, grand juries have only dismissed charges three times."
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

If you won't read there is no point to posting it again and again. There is no intellectual integrity nor consistency in your messages.
Joko, I'm sure and Hatuey are all thinking alike, but none of you will answer the question. What did Garner die from? Heart attack? Crushed windpipe? Application of a choke hold that cut off blood and/or oxygen?

Work together if you like. Coming from the same intellectual playing field you should be able to reach an ACTUAL cause of death.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The cops said he WASNT being arrested. That my problem with this so why take the guy down at all? If I was on the GJ I would have sent it to trail on that basis alone.

Then you would have been only one of the 23. The other 22 who saw all the evidence, some you are not party to as yet, disagree.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Answers:

The medical examiner/coroner makes a determination of the cause of death. This, of course, can be challenged in court.

"Homicide" does NOT mean a crime was committed. Rather, it means the person was killed by another person or persons. Homicide of itself is not criminal. Criminal homicide is criminal. Think of the phrase "justifiable homicide."

It wasn't accidental death because that death was brought on by the actions of another person or people. For it to be declared "accident" would mean you are claiming that if the assault against Gardener had not happened he would have died at that same time anyway.

"Assault" is also accurate. Gardener WAS in fact assaulted by the police. The legal question is was it a legal assault. That's always why the only legal issues should NOT have been just whether Gardener was criminally killed - but also whether it was legal for the police to assault him. The DA took that off the table - as does nearly everyone on this thread.
Rather, they only want to debate absolute extremes. Murder or not murder - not the overall legalities of it.

My understanding was when the police came up to the man they said they weren't going to arrest him. IF that is the case why then cuff the man? There wouldn't have been any resistance. I think the resistance came about because they said one thing and did another. But what do I know.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Well, that compilation, if you disregard the very stupid text commentary, actually shows he was asked to leave the area.We know that prior to the video he was met by an undercover officer. That and the fact the store had called asking to have the illegal sellers to be cleared out pretty much put a pin in it.

Lmao - What minute:second did he say that? :) You do realize it's not illegal to argue with a police officer about moving if you feel you have a right to be in that particular area, correct? However, I'll indulge your weak attempts at irrelevance.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Is there any filter for what I can see and hear? NO. The GJ did.
Could I hear what everyone who examined the body said publicly? Yes. The GJ could not.
Can I hear what experts of all kinds have publicly said? Yes. The GJ could not.
Can I hear and see all evidence and information made public by anyone? Yes. Did the GJ? No.

But I got it, to you, those in the criminal justice system are your God. God knows everything. No one else does, only your God does.

Here's the fact again:

"Of about 125,000 adult felony arrests in Manhattan in the last five years, grand juries have only dismissed charges three times."

Same old nonsense. Yes, your knowledge on the event is filtered, quite a bit. You DO NOT have access to all the evidence the GJ did. Further you don't know that the GJ's access to ANY evidence was withheld. The transcript has not been released. Yet another thing you are filtered from.

And that last further demonstrates you don't understand why or how cases are brought before a grand jury.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No, if there was a fair trial with cross examination, then I'd abide by whatever outcome, because it would be heard in a fair trial.

So, a man's life isn't worth the cost of a trial?

How Soviet of you.


why dont all you who want a trial pay for one

i am sure NYC will gladly put these cops on trial if you guys want to put your money up

But when the cops are acquitted, and your money is spent, dont come back crying

I'm serious....pool your money, and get your friends......3 million maybe a tad more.......

As you say, the price of justice......you can even hire your own prosecutor since you apparently think this one is tainted

better make it 4 million just to be safe........someone start a fund......i am sure there are thousands willing to throw good money down the drain
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

My understanding was when the police came up to the man they said they weren't going to arrest him. IF that is the case why then cuff the man? There wouldn't have been any resistance. I think the resistance came about because they said one thing and did another. But what do I know.

Well for one, they may have been just talking about on the selling illegal goods charge. We don't hear a lot of the conversation from the police side, nor have we heard what the conversation was before the video. However he was asked to leave the area and refused.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Actually that is precisely what he died of.
Well...I SUSPECT it is...but I havent seen the coroners report.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Lmao - What minute:second did he say that? :) You do realize it's not illegal to argue with a police officer about moving if you feel you have a right to be in that particular area, correct? However, I'll indulge your weak attempts at irrelevance.

It's not against the law to argue, it is against the law to not move on when the police tell you to do so. If you want to debate whether they were in the right to ask you to move along the only legal way to do so is after the fact. That's what attorneys and lawsuits are for.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Taking the ill informed side of it: then why weren't they put on trial since they obviously contributed to his death? No Justice, No Peace! :roll:

Desperation is setting in for the side with no arguments. Courts have already ruled that not even cops have a duty to protect someone. So what makes you think EMTs have a constitutional duty to save people's lives? The EMTs at the scene were hired by one of the local hospitals and the FDNY. The most that can be done against them is administrative measures.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It's not against the law to argue, it is against the law to not move on when the police tell you to do so. If you want to debate whether they were in the right to ask you to move along the only legal way to do so is after the fact. That's what attorneys and lawsuits are for.

Please tell us during what minute:second the cops asked him to leave.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Desperation is setting in for the side with no arguments. Courts have already ruled that not even cops have a duty to protect someone. So what makes you think EMTs have a constitutional duty to save people's lives? The EMTs at the scene were hired by one of the local hospitals and the FDNY. The most that can be done against them is administrative measures.

Not following along with your own side's arguments very well are you?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Reading through this thread and dealing with the other threads related to police involvement with suspects and the prosecution of such events I've come to very much appreciate the Canadian justice system. There's lots to love about America and your culture and government, etc., but your justice system is far too political for my liking. We have civilian oversight of police here - in any situation where a suspect is seriously injured or dies, that civilian oversight automatically investigates the matter and that civilian oversight determines whether or not charges will be laid. Seems in your system, all these parties that provide oversight and prosecution are elected officials beholden to those who elected them and those who funded them and they interfere severely with the pursuit of justice. To me, that's a terrible system.
 
Back
Top Bottom