• 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

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.

Therein lies the technical accuracy of the situation. I personally think a chokehold is terrible, and they shouldn't use it for a reason. But from a legal perspective, it isn't illegal. It's a policy issue. The NYPD should release him from any additional affiliation with them for breaking their policy which according to my BIL is something that the cop as well as the other cops should have known by second nature.
Hi Tres. I get the difference between 'illegal" and "policy" but is it up to the police to decide whether a choke-hold is legal or not? That would seem to be out of their jurisdiction as they are intended to enforce the laws, not create them.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

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?

Once again, ask the Justice Department why there is no law on the books that say an NYPD policeman can't use a chokehold. Why are you asking me? I'm not a lawmaker. I'm not the one who gets to decide what the NYPD is allowed or not allowed to do legally, nor is anyone here.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Hi Tres. I get the difference between 'illegal" and "policy" but is it up to the police to decide whether a choke-hold is legal or not? That would seem to be out of their jurisdiction as they are intended to enforce the laws, not create them.

Of course it isn't up to the police to make laws. They just enforce them. It's up to the lawmakers to decide what the laws are.

Which is why the cop in question couldn't be indicted by the Grand Jury for breaking NYPD policy. People keep bringing up the policy being banned by the NYPD as if it was something they were supposed to consider. They weren't. That's a matter for the NYPD. That said, they should have considered whether this was undue force and intentional or willful disregard for human life (or something like that...not a lawyer here) which has nothing to do with the NYPD policy itself.

Happy Friday Grant!
 
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.
The police are given special powers not enjoyed by the citizen which is why citizens, in granting them these powers, must be careful that the power the police enjoy is not corrupted, as power often is.

This is not an indictment against all, many, or most police officers in this Eric Garner case. It is against the officer, or officers, who abused their authority and exercised poor and overzealous judgement. The public must have confidence that those who have the power to 'serve and protect' must do so within the law. We give the police discretion realizing that they have a difficult job to do under often dangerous circumstances but this was not a dangerous situation at all. It seemed more of a power trip by the cop who attacked Garner from behind and, from what we see on the video, this action cannot be justified.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

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
No....8,734 cheeseburgers too many and no time on the stair master 'killed the man'.

The guy that shot the video...the one w/ 27 (and now 28) arrests for charges ranging from possession, distribution, theft, assault, and weapons charges? Yeah...excuse me if I find his testimony just the tiniest bit self serving.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

So you have evidence that there is a considerable amount of time elapsed? Correct?

It doesn't have to be a considerable amount of time. We know there is missing tape, of an indeterminate length, from the video. We know this because there is an obvious cut between Garner's complaint and garner's take down. I am not the one assigning a what if to that missing time. It is you and the other pro-indictment folks imagining what happened in that missing video, I am simply here to tell you that you have no way on making any determination on whether the arrest attempt was warranted or not based on that video because it is clearly incomplete.


No one said he was being arrested for no reason.

Sure they have. Read the thread.

As a matter of fact, it's been established the cops approached him over some 3 quarter cigarettes and then put him in a chokehold because he talked a little too loud for their liking.

And I am saying that you have no way of knowing what instigated the take down. And your story is wrong anyway. The store owner called the police on Garner.

That's the reason this thread has gone on for 176 pages. We have people like you who thinks this was a reasonable response to a 40 year old smokes peddler and people like me who see it as an assault/manslaughter/murder (depends on the person) by some weak cops. :shrug: Keep at the suppositions though. It's fun to know you haven't moved up from what if.

No, it has gone on for so many pages because there are posters like you who insist that all there is to know is contained in an edited video. :roll:
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Ummm... what the hell are you on about? Yes it does. I showed you video depicting what happened before and after the original video. What missing footage are you talking about? Wait.. how do you know there is missing footage? :)

Except the missing piece isn't before or after the original video, it's in the middle.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Of course it isn't up to the police to make laws. They just enforce them. It's up to the lawmakers to decide what the laws are. Which is why the cop in question couldn't be indicted by the Grand Jury for breaking NYPD policy. People keep bringing up the policy being banned by the NYPD as if it was something they were supposed to consider. They weren't. That's a matter for the NYPD. That said, they should have considered whether this was undue force and intentional or willful disregard for human life (or something like that...not a lawyer here) which has nothing to do with the NYPD policy itself.
So choke-holds are legal but against NYPD policy. Would that be right? (I'm still on my first coffee!)

Happy Friday Grant!
Thanks, and a very Happy Friday to you and yours as well!
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

I don't know. I have known a few over the years. The ones I met were pretty impressive people. Of course like attracts like. :)

Thanks for the anecdote. I am glad you have had great experience with cops; many of us have. My guess is that you never were an inner-city black kid, so I doubt you have had that experience. Cops are people too: there are good ones, bad ones, competent ones, incompetent one, white ones, black ones, blue ones, righteous ones and evil ones. Your experience may vary.

You do realize, however, that unless the argument was one of "ALL" or "NONE", then a anecdote is not an argument. Its only a nice story. Thank you for sharing.


The rules are far more lenient for a grand jury than for a trial. The bar is intentionally set lower than for a trial. I do not believe you understand that.

Justice was served.

If you understand how the GJ process works. its not a trial, but a one-sided presentation of evidence. As such, the GJ usually comes to the verdict the DA wants. It is not a perfect process by any means.

Now, if I were a wimp DA... and my dad was a cop was shot on the job, I might not have much zeal for prosecuting a cop (nor would I want someone else to do it). I just might give a lackluster presentation to a grand jury to let them come to a "not enough evidence" decision to provide cover for a decision, if I were to make it, would have me skewered by many in my community as well as nationally. I don't want to prosecute, I don't want anyone else to prosecute and I don't want to be known as the man that did not prosecute..... Great Idea: call a grand jury. Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

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

How do you know the officer never stated his intent? As I keep telling you folks the part of the video where the officer would have done that is missing from the video. It cuts straight from Garner's complaint to the arrest attempt. You won't often see a police officer explaining the reason for the arrest during the process of wrestling the suspect to the ground. That comes before, and that is where the video is missing.

It was announced on the news this morning that unlike the rest of us, the Grand Jury actually saw four videos of the altercation (or maybe not, see edit), three of which we haven't seen, as will as interviewed 50 witnesses, so trying to second guess the Grand Jury without all the information is a foolish.

From that article, here is the list of evidence the Grand Jury used to arrive at their verdict:

— The grand jury sat for nine weeks.

— They heard from 50 witnesses — 22 civilians and the rest were police officers, emergency medical personnel and doctors.

— Sixty exhibits were admitted into evidence, including four videos and records about the policies and procedures of the New York Police Department.

— They saw medical records, photographs and autopsy records.

— They saw records on NYPD training.

— Finally, they were briefed on law that governs a police officer's use of physical force when making an arrest.



Edit: But, from that report I can't be sure if the 4 videos were of the altercation. It could just as easily be the 1 video of the altercation plus 3 police training videos
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No....8,734 cheeseburgers too many and no time on the stair master 'killed the man'.
He seemed to be doing all right before the cop jumped him from behind, applied a choke hold, and knocked him to the sidewalk. I doubt the family will be suing MacDonalds for wrongful death..
The guy that shot the video...the one w/ 27 (and now 28) arrests for charges ranging from possession, distribution, theft, assault, and weapons charges? Yeah...excuse me if I find his testimony just the tiniest bit self serving.
It's hard to escape the video evidence.

Going against what the police have to say is not likely to be 'self-serving'. He could just as easily have additional problems.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It doesn't have to be a considerable amount of time. We know there is missing tape, of an indeterminate length, from the video. We know this because there is an obvious cut between Garner's complaint and garner's take down. I am not the one assigning a what if to that missing time. It is you and the other pro-indictment folks imagining what happened in that missing video, I am simply here to tell you that you have no way on making any determination on whether the arrest attempt was warranted or not based on that video because it is clearly incomplete.

Shortening the above for you:

- Entire paragraph boils down to: What if there is something in that video which makes this action justified?
- Nobody is assigning what if to the "missing tape". Nobody has even claimed there is anything of relevance in "the missing tape". Actually, you're the first person to suggest that whatever is "missing" is what's really going to justify all of this.

Sure they have. Read the thread.

And I am saying that you have no way of knowing what instigated the take down. And your story is wrong anyway. The store owner called the police on Garner.

No, it has gone on for so many pages because there are posters like you who insist that all there is to know is contained in an edited video. :roll:

Eh, the takedown was instigated because Garner was allegedly selling bootleg cigarettes and that is a terrible crime worthy of a chokehold, and 5 people piling on you. Do you not realize yet that the supposed probable cause does not justify the police's violent confrontation with a 40 year old? There is no evidence whatsoever that points to Garner being violent at any point and relying on "What if there's something we don't know" is nothing more than a bull**** cop-out to keep justifying the police's abuse. :shrug:
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

How do you know the officer never stated his intent? As I keep telling you folks the part of the video where the officer would have done that is missing from the video. It cuts straight from Garner's complaint to the arrest attempt. You won't often see a police officer explaining the reason for the arrest during the process of wrestling the suspect to the ground. That comes before, and that is where the video is missing.
You're quite right to a point in that we can't see any officer explaining any reason for the arrest but we do have a witness at the end of this video. Cigarettes were not apparently mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYSnp1UGVGc
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Shortening the above for you:

- Entire paragraph boils down to: What if there is something in that video which makes this action justified?
- Nobody is assigning what if to the "missing tape". Nobody has even claimed there is anything of relevance in "the missing tape". Actually, you're the first person to suggest that whatever is "missing" is what's really going to justify all of this.

Wow, project much? The "What if" comes from you and others that have decided that nothing exists between those two cuts to make the arrerst justified. I am not making a claim on the content of the missing video, only that it is missing. YOU are claiming a certainty on the contents of the missing video.

Eh, the takedown was instigated because Garner was allegedly selling bootleg cigarettes and that is a terrible crime worthy of a chokehold, and 5 people piling on you. Do you not realize yet that the supposed probable cause does not justify the police's violent confrontation with a 40 year old? There is no evidence whatsoever that points to Garner being violent at any point and relying on "What if there's something we don't know" is nothing more than a bull**** cop-out to keep justifying the police's abuse. :shrug:

No, again, your statement is both wrong on the details we know and makes an assumption about what happens between the cuts in the video. You are the one building a narrative on make believe evidence. I am here to point out the holes in your narrative and evidence.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

It doesn't have to be a considerable amount of time. We know there is missing tape, of an indeterminate length, from the video.
No one -- including the arresting officers -- claim that Garner did anything violent, or tried to flee.


I am simply here to tell you that you have no way on making any determination on whether the arrest attempt was warranted or not based on that video because it is clearly incomplete.
It's pretty clear, even given that gap, that Garner did not try to flee or violently resist arrest.


And I am saying that you have no way of knowing what instigated the take down.
He non-violently resisted arrest. That's not in dispute, by anyone.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No....8,734 cheeseburgers too many and no time on the stair master 'killed the man'.

The guy that shot the video...the one w/ 27 (and now 28) arrests for charges ranging from possession, distribution, theft, assault, and weapons charges? Yeah...excuse me if I find his testimony just the tiniest bit self serving.

The coroner disagrees with you. Assuming you're not a forensic pathologist who's autopsied the body I'll take his word for it.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

So choke-holds are legal but against NYPD policy. Would that be right? (I'm still on my first coffee!)

Thanks, and a very Happy Friday to you and yours as well!

I'll presume to answer for Tres. Yes that is correct.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

You're quite right to a point in that we can't see any officer explaining any reason for the arrest but we do have a witness at the end of this video. Cigarettes were not apparently mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYSnp1UGVGc

So that would point to the possibility that cigarettes had nothing to do with the confrontation, or the choice to arrest Garner. It was clearly on the top of Garner's mind when the police approached him but that doesn't mean that Garner wasn't just making incorrect assumptions in his agitated state.

What we know for certain is that the video everyone here is using to discern what happened is critically missing the part of the altercation where the police demeanor changed from folded arms and listening to Garner rant to arresting Garner. Any claim that Garner did nothing to warrant arrest is unfounded because the public simply doesn't have that information, at least not from that video.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

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.

To make it even more insane. This is Chief of Police Phillip Banks III. He is the one that issued the order to crackdown on the sale of loosies.
032913chiefbanksinterviewpm110952-300x450.jpg


Banks gets his marching orders from the Police commissioner William J. Bratton, who was appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio and took office on January 1, 2014.

Bratton gets his marching orders from Mayor de Blasio.

deblasio_sharpton.jpg


de Blasio threw his police department under the bus, and implied they were untrustworthy and racist. After his divisive speech. Obama personally called and thanked him.


Police fury at mayor’s racial smear | New York Post
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Wow, project much? The "What if" comes from you and others that have decided that nothing exists between those two cuts to make the arrerst justified. I am not making a claim on the content of the missing video, only that it is missing. YOU are claiming a certainty on the contents of the missing video.

No, again, your statement is both wrong on the details we know and makes an assumption about what happens between the cuts in the video. You are the one building a narrative on make believe evidence. I am here to point out the holes in your narrative and evidence.

Lol, the above and below contradict each other and you still don't think they do.

Part one of the post: You can't assume something happened!
Part two of the post: What if something something happened?

Please stop this. It's silly. If you have evidence that something of relevance happened in that supposed missing part of the video, I ask you to bring it forward. If not, then let it rest and admit it's of no relevance. :shrug:
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

....Any claim that Garner did nothing to warrant arrest is unfounded because the public simply doesn't have that information, at least not from that video.
The issue isn't whether there was a reason to detain him.

The issue is that the officers used excessive force, including a choke hold banned precisely to avoid this kind of outcome, to detain Garner; and that the officer was given a free pass by the criminal justice system.

Yet again, the cigarette law was merely coincidental to the situation. As I posted earlier, on Nov 22, a 20 year old man named Donovan Lawson illegally jumped a turnstile in the NYC subway. During the arrest, Donovan was beaten on the head with a baton by an arresting officer. Even if you believe that the officer's use of force on Donovan was fully justified, the fact still remains that the type or nature of the offense is not what results in an escalation of the use of force by the officers.

NYPD officer smashes alleged fare beater in head with baton - NY Daily News
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

The coroner disagrees with you. Assuming you're not a forensic pathologist who's autopsied the body I'll take his word for it.
No...the coroner doesnt. In fact the coroner cited all of those problems as contributing factors.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Here are cops actually earning their paycheck against a total bad ass. Notice no choke hold. or lethal moves.

 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

No...the coroner doesnt. In fact the coroner cited all of those problems as contributing factors.

Emphasis on the word contributing. The coroner called the primary causes neck and chest compression. That makes your statement factually incorrect.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Of course it isn't up to the police to make laws. They just enforce them. It's up to the lawmakers to decide what the laws are.

Which is why the cop in question couldn't be indicted by the Grand Jury for breaking NYPD policy. People keep bringing up the policy being banned by the NYPD as if it was something they were supposed to consider. They weren't. That's a matter for the NYPD. That said, they should have considered whether this was undue force and intentional or willful disregard for human life (or something like that...not a lawyer here) which has nothing to do with the NYPD policy itself.

Happy Friday Grant!

Chokeholds were banned because they kill people.
Therefore using chokeholds is willful disregard for human life.
 
Back
Top Bottom