NYPD cop in Eric Garner 'chokehold' death not indicted - NY Daily News

 

Staten Island was bracing for Ferguson-like trouble Wednesday after a grand jury chose not to indict an NYPD officer for killing Eric Garner with a chokehold, sources said.

 

There had been warnings earlier that a decision not to charge Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who is white, with a crime for killing a black man, would fan tensions.

 

And as word of the panel’s decision seeped into the Staten Island neighborhoods where anti-police sentiment is strongest, cops were on high alert and prepared for the worst.

 

Garner, a 43-year-old father of six, was killed July 17 when Pantaleo subdued him on a Tompkinsville street with a banned chokehold.

 

Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes - better known as loosies - and that he resisted arrest.

 

They noted that Garner’s rap sheet listed 31 arrests, beginning when he was 16.

 

But Garner’s death sparked national outrage after The Daily News obtained a sickening cell phone video of his deadly encounter with police.

 

Pantaleo, who had been accused of false arrest and violating police procedures in two previous lawsuits, was yanked off the street.

 

The Staten Island district attorney and the Civilian Complaint Review Board launched probes. And the medical examiner’s office ruled Garner’s death a homicide.

 

But after several months of reviewing the evidence, a majority on the panel, which sources said consisted of 15 white and 8 black or Hispanic jurors, concluded there was not enough there to charge Pantaleo with a crime.

 

Pantaleo, 29, an eight-year veteran of the force, could still be hit with departmental charges that could end his career as a New York City police officer.

NYPD cop in Eric Garner 'chokehold' death not indicted - NY Daily News

 

Staten Island was bracing for Ferguson-like trouble Wednesday after a grand jury chose not to indict an NYPD officer for killing Eric Garner with a chokehold, sources said.

 

There had been warnings earlier that a decision not to charge Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who is white, with a crime for killing a black man, would fan tensions.

 

And as word of the panel’s decision seeped into the Staten Island neighborhoods where anti-police sentiment is strongest, cops were on high alert and prepared for the worst.

 

Garner, a 43-year-old father of six, was killed July 17 when Pantaleo subdued him on a Tompkinsville street with a banned chokehold.

 

Police said they approached Garner because he was selling unlicensed cigarettes - better known as loosies - and that he resisted arrest.

 

They noted that Garner’s rap sheet listed 31 arrests, beginning when he was 16.

 

But Garner’s death sparked national outrage after The Daily News obtained a sickening cell phone video of his deadly encounter with police.

 

Pantaleo, who had been accused of false arrest and violating police procedures in two previous lawsuits, was yanked off the street.

 

The Staten Island district attorney and the Civilian Complaint Review Board launched probes. And the medical examiner’s office ruled Garner’s death a homicide.

 

But after several months of reviewing the evidence, a majority on the panel, which sources said consisted of 15 white and 8 black or Hispanic jurors, concluded there was not enough there to charge Pantaleo with a crime.

 

Pantaleo, 29, an eight-year veteran of the force, could still be hit with departmental charges that could end his career as a New York City police officer.

 

In watching the video of this, if people want to protest, they should protest this. Based off the video, this officer should have been indicted.

SLWB. Guy should have known better.

How is there not more outrage over this?

How is there not more outrage over this?

 

 

I am seeing it online.

That video is tough to watch. Hearing "I can't breathe" repeatedly is rough. EMTs were suspended without pay for their handling of him.

 

 

 

http://nypost.com/2014/07/20/4-ems-workers-barred-from-duty-after-chokehold-death/

Is it possible the grand jury didn't see the video?

 

How else could you not indict?

 

What other 'evidence' could there have been that would outweigh the obvious excessive force used?

Is it possible the grand jury didn't see the video? How else could you not indict? What other 'evidence' could there have been that would outweigh the obvious excessive force used?

 

What is the law in NY?

You mean how to define excessive force?

 

I have no idea. I'm just using common sense. The guy was arrested for selling cigarettes and was unarmed. He wasn't robbing a store.

 

Does it take 5 guys to jump him to get him in cuffs?

 

Once he started saying he can't breathe you'd think somebody would have backed off.

I'm trying to think or something that would give the grand jury justification for this but I'm failing to think of anything. Based off that video this looks horrible. This should be bigger than the Brown news IMO.

You mean how to define excessive force? I have no idea. I'm just using common sense. The guy was arrested for selling cigarettes and was unarmed. He wasn't robbing a store. Does it take 5 guys to jump him to get him in cuffs? Once he started saying he can't breathe you'd think somebody would have backed off.

 

We need to know the written word.

You mean how to define excessive force?

 

I have no idea. I'm just using common sense. The guy was arrested for selling cigarettes and was unarmed. He wasn't robbing a store.

 

Does it take 5 guys to jump him to get him in cuffs?

 

Once he started saying he can't breathe you'd think somebody would have backed off.

 

He obviously broke protocol and should be fired. But it also doesn't make it criminal. The guy was huge and resisting arrest. If he just goes peacefully he's alive.

 

But I agree this probably should of went to court. But just from watching the video I can't say id vote guilty.

I'm trying to think or something that would give the grand jury justification for this but I'm failing to think of anything. Based off that video this looks horrible. This should be bigger than the Brown news IMO.

 

Was he not resisting arrest ?

Was he not resisting arrest ?

 

He was so big I'm guessing they thought they had to use force to subdue him, even though it shouldn't have been warranted.

If he was 'resisting' it was very passive.

 

He wasn't being arrested for a violent crime, but for selling cigarettes.

 

There was no imminent threat to anyone around them or the cops. I don't know the legal definition of excessive force but just as a layman it sure looks like there was a way to safely talk him into being handcuffed. Take a little more time. Why the rush? He wasn't armed.

 

This is not Ferguson, where the evidence clearly put the responsibility of what happened on the criminal where it belonged.

 

I can't grasp how choking a petty criminal to death is 'legal'.

 

If what happened to him is legal, then that law needs to be reconsidered.