• 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

tres borrachos said:
So then why did the Grand Jury members disagree? Has there been anything put out yet on the trial?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I wasn't part of the review and the records remain sealed.

There won't be a trial based on the grand jury's outcome.

There should be, but I seriously doubt there will be. Garner's widow will have to try and get restitution through the civil court process.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

the DA has the ability to release the GJ testimony

it would probably clear up a lot of the issues

whether or not he will is entirely different matter

this article gave a little information

Extremely ‘Specific’ Information About Garner Grand Jury Proceedings Released
By Caroline Bankoff

Soon after the world learned that Daniel Pantaleo wouldn't be charged with Eric Garner's death, Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan announced that he had asked for the public release of "specific information in connection" with the grand jury's investigation. On Thursday, the Supreme Court judge who oversaw the Garner case, Stephen Rooney, granted Donovan's request, but those hoping for a Ferguson-esque document dump are going to be pretty disappointed.

Donovan didn't apply for the release of witness testimony, transcripts, or details of the evidence presented to the jurors. So, basically, he didn't ask for anything that would shed light on why the grand jury decided not to indict despite what everyone saw in the video of Pantaleo putting Garner in a chokehold. A DNAinfo source predicted that the material "at best provide a table of contents," and they were pretty much right.

Here's what we learned from the four-page disclosure provided by Judge Rooney:

The grand jury was in session for nine weeks.
The grand jury heard from 50 witnesses, 22 of whom were civilians. The others were cops, EMTs, and doctors.
60 items were entered into evidence. They included four videos, some medical records, autopsy photos, photos from the scene, and information on NYPD policy, procedures, and training.
The grand jury was instructed on "relevant principles of law" regarding an officer's right to use force.
In a statement, Donovan said, "I will have no further comment in connection with the grand jury proceedings relating to the matter of the investigation into the death of Eric Garner."

Meanwhile, the New York Times talked to Pantaleo's attorney about what his client said during his two hours of testimony in late November:

The officer tackled some of the most damaging evidence head-on. He acknowledged that he heard Mr. Garner saying, “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe,” and insisted that he tried to disengage as quickly as he could, according to his lawyer, Stuart London. At the same time, Mr. Garner’s ability to speak, the officer testified, suggested that he, in fact, could breathe.

“He wanted to get across to the grand jury that it was never his intention to injure or harm anyone,” Mr. London said. “He was really just describing how he was attempting to arrest someone.”

According to London, Pantaleo testified that he had not been trying to put Garner in a chokehold. Instead, he claimed that he employed a Police Academy move meant to "tip the person so they lose their balance and go to the ground." However:

As the struggle continued, one of Officer Pantaleo’s arms moved around Mr. Garner’s neck. Officer Pantaleo told the grand jury that he became fearful as he found himself sandwiched between a much larger man and a storefront window.

“He testified that the glass buckled while Garner was up against him and he was against the glass,” Mr. London said. “He was concerned that both he and Garner would go through that glass.”

"That’s why [Pantaleo] attempted to get off [Garner] as quick as he could. He thought that once E.M.T. arrived, everything would be O.K," explained London. London added that Pantaleo was aware that he was being filmed but wasn't concerned because, "He knew he was committing no misconduct so it didn’t bother him."

Perhaps someone else who was in the courtroom will decide to leak more information in the future. But, for now, this is all we've got.

Information About Garner Grand Jury Released -- NYMag
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

gdgyva said:
the question is what could he have done....the first rule of law enforcement is to go home safe at the end of your shift

so....with safety in mind, subdual is what every law enforcement officer is TRAINED to do

they cant hurt you.....you "usually" dont hurt them with subdual tactics

calmer heads prevail, and everyone eventually goes home safely

it didnt work here.....but that is the training that every cop gets

and even people without weapons can be very dangerous.....especially ones the size of Mr Garner

tasers, pepper spray, batons.....all used to subdue subjects

and yes....if you are a perp and dont acquiesce immediately, you too will know what subdual means

i have zero issue with cops using these techniques.......saves lives on both sides
Click to expand...
Sounds like some schoolyard bully ****. Submit or else pain.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

gdgyva said:
the DA has the ability to release the GJ testimony

it would probably clear up a lot of the issues
Click to expand...
No, it won't. Because most people have no idea how grand juries work, or why such extensive presentations of evidence are actually an example of the prosecutor manipulating the process.

Normally, the only purpose of a grand jury is to ensure there's enough evidence to warrant a trial. The prosecutor usually only presents a handful of evidence, enough to convince enough grand jurors to indict. In most cases, a grand jury will spend less than a day on its deliberations.

However, a GJ proceeding is NOT a trial. There's no cross-examination, no one to challenge the witnesses, no way to question the evidence. It's all one-sided, with the prosecutor in charge. If the prosecutor doesn't want the cop to be indicted, he can find ways to discredit the evidence, with no one advocating for it, and allow the accused officer to speak without being cross-examined.

In addition, there are reports that the prosecutor required the jury to either indict for murder, or nothing at all. The GJ was apparently not given the option to indict for lesser charges. From the same source you cited, no less..... Garner Grand Jury Didn?t Consider Lesser Charges -- NYMag

The purpose of a grand jury is not to decide guilt or innocence. It's much simpler than that. And when a grand jury proceeding takes 9 weeks and 50 witnesses -- when in most cases it takes a day -- it doesn't take much to recognize that the prosecutor is up to something. And no release of grand jury transcripts will reveal what.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Visbek said:
No, it won't. Because most people have no idea how grand juries work, or why such extensive presentations of evidence are actually an example of the prosecutor manipulating the process.

Normally, the only purpose of a grand jury is to ensure there's enough evidence to warrant a trial. The prosecutor usually only presents a handful of evidence, enough to convince enough grand jurors to indict. In most cases, a grand jury will spend less than a day on its deliberations.

However, a GJ proceeding is NOT a trial. There's no cross-examination, no one to challenge the witnesses, no way to question the evidence. It's all one-sided, with the prosecutor in charge. If the prosecutor doesn't want the cop to be indicted, he can find ways to discredit the evidence, with no one advocating for it, and allow the accused officer to speak without being cross-examined.

In addition, there are reports that the prosecutor required the jury to either indict for murder, or nothing at all. The GJ was apparently not given the option to indict for lesser charges. From the same source you cited, no less..... Garner Grand Jury Didn?t Consider Lesser Charges -- NYMag

The purpose of a grand jury is not to decide guilt or innocence. It's much simpler than that. And when a grand jury proceeding takes 9 weeks and 50 witnesses -- when in most cases it takes a day -- it doesn't take much to recognize that the prosecutor is up to something. And no release of grand jury transcripts will reveal what.
Click to expand...

Posters on here have been using the video as evidence that the cop was at fault here and should have been charged. So how exactly did the prosecutor discredit the video, squelch the advocates of the video, and find a way to convince the majority of 12 citizens to ignore the video that everyone else saw?
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:
How about "don't break the law and you won't have to worry about a confrontation with the police"?
Click to expand...

I only agree with this to a point. I think there are definitely circumstances where someone not breaking the law might still be in a situation where they could have a confrontation with the police. The level of that confrontation though, and how far it goes is going to almost always be based on the person's reactions and cooperation with the police. There are a few situations where the police officer is just stupid, crazy, or on a power trip that leads to a cooperative person getting hurt or killed, and those should absolutely be dealt with. We haven't really been seeing those though, with some exceptions that are getting very little attention.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:
Posters on here have been using the video as evidence that the cop was at fault here and should have been charged. So how exactly did the prosecutor discredit the video, squelch the advocates of the video, and find a way to convince the majority of 12 citizens to ignore the video that everyone else saw?
Click to expand...

Present the jury with Murder 2 and Murder 2 only. Don't give them the option of involuntary manslaughter. What was on the video doesn't qualify as murder - must people looking at the video would agree to that. What was on the video is arguably involuntary manslaughter - arguably enough to warrant a trial.

End result: no indictment.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
Present the jury with Murder 2 and Murder 2 only. Don't give them the option of involuntary manslaughter. What was on the video doesn't qualify as murder - must people looking at the video would agree to that. End result: no indictment.
Click to expand...

In general, a person may not use physical force to resist a lawful arrest by a police officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer. Resisting an arrest is a misdemeanor. Resisting arrest typically involves an arrestee physically struggling with an officer as he tries to place on handcuffs, or when the arrestee struggles as he is being placed in a patrol car or jail cell.

A common defense to resisting arrest is that the officer acted with excessive force. While an arrestee is expected to comply with an officer's reasonable actions to affect an arrest, the arrestee is allowed to defend himself from unreasonable, excessive force used by the officer.

 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

twixie1 said:
In general, a person may not use physical force to resist a lawful arrest by a police officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer. Resisting an arrest is a misdemeanor. Resisting arrest typically involves an arrestee physically struggling with an officer as he tries to place on handcuffs, or when the arrestee struggles as he is being placed in a patrol car or jail cell.

A common defense to resisting arrest is that the officer acted with excessive force. While an arrestee is expected to comply with an officer's reasonable actions to affect an arrest, the arrestee is allowed to defend himself from unreasonable, excessive force used by the officer.
Click to expand...

Can you cite case law for that? The only relevant case law I know - actually a SC decision - dealt with defense against an unlawful arrest where the person reasonably believed the cop knew the arrest was unlawful.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
Present the jury with Murder 2 and Murder 2 only. Don't give them the option of involuntary manslaughter. What was on the video doesn't qualify as murder - must people looking at the video would agree to that. What was on the video is arguably involuntary manslaughter - arguably enough to warrant a trial.

End result: no indictment.
Click to expand...

He didn't present them with Murder 1 and Murder 2. He presented them with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

dirtpoorchris said:
Sounds like some schoolyard bully ****. Submit or else pain.
Click to expand...

we pay law enforcement officers to keep the peace

and to enforce laws

it is hard enough getting qualified candidates in some areas

take away those things that make the job safer, and you'll have no cops around

subdual has been used for years...very few incidents like Mr Garner because they work

your choice always........do as cops say, or face the consequences
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

ObamacareFail said:
Even that is a crime.
Click to expand...

A crime created by poor taxing decisions that create black markets.

It is a victimless crime and is a disrespectable law.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:
He didn't present them with Murder 1 and Murder 2. He presented them with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.
Click to expand...

My charges were by way of example to point out how a DA can easily manipulate a GJ and weren't a comment on the Garner case.

I didn't realize they'd made the Garner charges public. Honestly criminally negligent homicide seems to fit the bill. NY defines criminal negligence as

A person acts with criminal negligence with
respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining
an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The
risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation
Click to expand...

From what I've seen there seems to be ample evidence to justify that charge and bring it to trial. Maybe there's not enough for a conviction but certainly a trail seems warranted.

There was also at least one other lesser charge, reckless endangerment, that wasn't presented.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

Gaius46 said:
Thanks. I'm a little iffy on the idea that excessive force on the part of the officer makes the arrest illegal. Have never heard that before. As a practical matter in almost all cases the court's going to side with the officer when he says he wasn't using excessive force, unless it's something completely over-the-top.
Click to expand...

I am sure the officer will win every time...LOL..
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:
Posters on here have been using the video as evidence that the cop was at fault here and should have been charged. So how exactly did the prosecutor discredit the video, squelch the advocates of the video, and find a way to convince the majority of 12 citizens to ignore the video that everyone else saw?
Click to expand...
If you actually READ the post that you replied to, you'd understand how the prosecutor likely controlled the procedure.

And to reiterate a key point: Normally, a grand jury proceeding takes less than a day, and the prosecutor ONLY shares enough evidence with the grand jury to secure an indictment. When the proceeding takes 9 weeks and involves 50 witnesses, something is definitely rotten in the state of New York.
 
Re: No Indictment in Chokehold Death

tres borrachos said:
How about "don't break the law and you won't have to worry about a confrontation with the police"?
Click to expand...

So, I'll take this to mean you have no problem with kids being arrested for selling lemonade without a proper license? Right? After all, they are breaking the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom