Do you know what charge see prosecutor presented?

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.

 

Again I don't know the law or what charge was presented like clyde said. But the fact he was unarmed or being arrested for a non-violent crime is irrelevant to the charge.

And we are supposed to believe the justice system works in cases similar to this one? HA.

Seriously, what would it take for a cop to be indicted for killing someone?

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.

 

Passively resisting is still resisting.

 

My question is why was the GJ only presented as to the one officer. Autopsy report said death was also due to pressure on the chest and the prone positioning on the ground. There was more than one officer involved in that.

 

Excessive force is subjective. What I may consider excessive you may not and visa versa.

FWIW there is a difference in a "Neck Restraint" and a "Choke Hold"

 

Neck Restrain applies pressure to the side of the neck without cutting off oxygen and is taught at most police academies.

Choke Hold applies pressure across the throat and restricts air flow and is not taught and is against policy for most departments.

 

From an average persons point of view they look very similar.

 

Proper use of neck hold not fatal, research shows | Las Vegas Review-Journal

 

In the video it looks as if he is held in either "Neck Restraint" or "Choke hold" for less than 15 seconds. Then afterwards as he's being handcuffed he says "I can't breath" at that point he was already handcuffed and no one had him by the neck. If he had been Choked he would have been coughing and gasping for air not speaking clearly.

 

But I know that most of you will dismiss this even though I've tried to be as clear as possible and haven't taken either side.

 

I'm in similar physical condition as Mr Garner and if I exerted myself trying to get free from five men, my health condition probably would kill me also.

Passively resisting is still resisting.

 

My question is why was the GJ only presented as to the one officer. Autopsy report said death was also due to pressure on the chest and the prone positioning on the ground. There was more than one officer involved in that.

 

Excessive force is subjective. What I may consider excessive you may not and visa versa.

 

That is a very good point, IMO the guy with the "Choke Hold" didn't cause much if any harm. If the officers kept pressure on his chest or back beyond the point of having him cuffed they too should have been looked at by the GJ.

And we are supposed to believe the justice system works in cases similar to this one? HA.

 

The saga continues........

 

 

Ironic this is in Staten Island.

And we are supposed to believe the justice system works in cases similar to this one? HA.

 

So you think if this was a huge white guy they don't restrain him? When he dies that the cop gets indicted.

 

I guess the 19 year old white girl who was shot in Boone County should be lucky she wasn't black who knows how many times they would of shot.

The saga continues........

 

 

Ironic this is in Staten Island.

 

As you know PP92, I am totally fine with the GJ decision in Ferguson - am convinced that it is totally justified. I do not feel the same about this one. This looks pretty bad and I think it at least should have gone to a trial. I don't like linking them together because they are totally different situations.

So you think if this was a huge white guy they don't restrain him? When he dies that the cop gets indicted.

 

I guess the 19 year old white girl who was shot in Boone County should be lucky she wasn't black who knows how many times they would of shot.

 

This is not even a black/white issue... It's an issue of cops killing civilians and getting away with it.

Was he not resisting arrest ?

 

Yes, they had plenty of people to take him down without killing him.

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.

Had they searched him? If not how did they know at the time he was unarmed?

Had they searched him? If not how did they know at the time he was unarmed?

 

What had he done to indicate he was a threat to anybody?

 

What had he done to indicate he was a threat to anybody?

 

Does someone have to be a threat to be forcefully arrested?