re: Eric Garner police record

quote:

---

looking at everything

---

Not necessarily true at all. The jury only sees what the prosecutor wants them to see in order to gain an indictment.

What happened in Fergusson with the DA showing all of the evidence is not the norm.

Did the jury actually consider negligent homicide? I haven't seen that.

Things I would bet the grand jury did see:
Eric Garner's arrest record
Extensive explanations of justification of force for police

Things I would bet the grand jury did not see:
A history of neck/chest compressions resulting in death
The NYPD policy on chokeholds
The record of Pantaleo

quote:

---

No lets see the evidence but simply done deal.

---

What else do you need? We've got the video, we've got the coroner report, and we've got the NYPD policy on chokeholds...

What other evidence would blow any of those three out of the water and not warrant a trial for negligence? Or course, unless the Prosecutor purposely didn't give the option and it was only "murder" or nothing. I don't know what NYs laws are on a GJ being able to choose Nother crime other than what the prosecutor is asking for

quote:

---

What else do you need?

---

What else do you got?

quote:

---

We've got the video,

---

Yes we do.

quote:

---

we've got the coroner report,

---

No we don't. we have a sentence soundbite from the coroner spokesperson.

quote:

---

and we've got the NYPD policy on chokeholds...

---

And the legality of it yes.

quote:

---

What other evidence would blow any of those three out of the water and not warrant a trial for negligence?

---

That is a great question.

•The panel heard from 50 witnesses, 22 of whom were civilians. The remaining witnesses were police officers, emergency medical personnel and doctors.


•60 exhibits were admitted into evidence, including four videos, records of NYPD policies and procedures, medical records pertaining to Garner's treatments, autopsy and on-scene photos and NYPD training records.


•The grand jury was instructed on relevant principles of the law, including the penal law regarding a police officer's use of physical force in making an arrest.

quote:

---

Or course, unless the Prosecutor purposely didn't give the option and it was only "murder" or nothing.

---

I would be the first in line complaining with you if this is the case. The link I put above to OP suggests otherwise, but I will be in your parlor on this if they went that way.

Angry White Guys are the only folks I know who possess the mental gymnastics to look at the Eric Garner video and conclude that the cops had a right to kill him. Of course these same folks have no interest in George Zimmerman's rap sheet because his skin color renders it meaningless.

quote:

---

So we know they considered negligent homicide?

---

No we don't. If they did, great. If they didn't then that is bullshite and they should have. I hope the media that reported they did was right because I believe that should have been considered. If not, I would like them to reconvene and consider it.

Wait, sorry. they wronnngggggg they baddddd rabble rabble rabble. Better?

quote:

---

So we know they considered negligent homicide?

=======
No we don't. If they did, great. If they didn't then that is bullshite and they should have.

---

This is my take on it - I will admit I just ASSUMED that they considered negligent homicide - really as the ONLY applicable charge.

However, as a layman looking at the video, I don't see where the cops did anything wrong at all. I'd like for someone to state positively at what point any one of them should have done something different.

It appears to me the 'chokehold' was only applied for the few seconds it took to get him to the ground. They were holding his head on the ground (which I ASSUME is the proper procedure for controlling a physically huge individual) I don't know if it would have been prudent at that point to just let him lie there with no restraint - their objective was to arrest (legitimate) the man who was resisting. I would hope the procedure is not to let up until you have the cuffs on him once you take him to the ground.

The fact that he was saying "I can't breathe" is troubling, but I would expect that a perp ALWAYS says something like that when being restrained = "you're breaking my arm" = "I can't breathe" = You're breaking my neck."

These cops have probably heard it all.

When did the EMTs get to the scene? How long did it take to call EMT for assistance? = these are the important questions in my mind and I don't know if that was discussed in the GJ or not, but I assume it would have to be for a discussion on negligence.

If they followed proper protocol on calling in the EMs then that is about all they could be expected to do.

Bottom line - habitual offender resists arrest - and has a lethal medical situation for that line of work.

quote:

---

We will keep going on this as long as some idiot insists on saying he died because of his ill health. He was killed. That's what homicide means. I'm not surprised some of yall don't get it. But it doesn't change the meaning of the word.

---

he was accidentally killed. Officer didn't mean to. He did some stuff that killed him. That stuff wouldn't have killed a normal person, just by the look of it. Not only that, but the ME said his health issues were contributing factors. I totally understand the facts.

Eric garner's arrest record should not have been before the GJ. Info to explain his complaint in the video about "not selling anything," etc, would be fine.