NYPD Chokehold Cop Not Indicted in Death of Eric Garner


The New York Post reports on the grand jury investigating whether New York Police Department Office Daniel Pantaleo should be indicted in the July death of Eric Garner:

A Staten Island grand jury cleared an NYPD cop Wednesday in the chokehold death of Eric Garner during his caught-on-video arrest for peddling loose cigarettes, The Post has learned.

The panel voted a "no-bill" and dismissed all potential charges against Officer Daniel Pantaleo, sources said.

The blockbuster decision capped weeks of investigation by the special grand jury, which was empaneled in September specifically to review evidence in Garner's racially charged death.

It was unclear exactly what charges prosecutors asked the grand jury to consider filing, or how the vote went.


Garner was being questioned about selling loose cigarettes ("loosies") in Staten Island.

Chokeholds such as the one seen in the image are prohibited in the NYPD's rule book but are not technically illegal. While police originally claimed that the 350-lb., 43-year-old Garner died of a heart attack during the altercation, a coroner ruled the death a homicide and said the chokehold and other police actions were the cause.

Here is cell phone footage of the incident:

Reason is your voice in debates about politics, culture, and ideas. Our annual Webathon is underway and your tax-deductible gift will help us fight against big government, crony capitalism, the drug war, and so much more. For details on giving levels and swag, go here now.

NEXT: Are Democrats Starting to Regret Obamacare?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


    1. That'll teach em!

      1. It will if you burn down the right buildings.

        1. Like the KFC and the liquor store!

          1. I was thinking city hall.

            1. Then you're the only one. I still have yet to see a public building burned. I mean, the don't have any good stuff to steal!!!

              1. I'm sure that the cops have orders to kill anyone who gets too close to a public building.

                1. Exactly. The fuzz protected the government buildings in Ferguson and let the privately owned business burn.

                  The only people in Ferguaon trying to protect private property were the Oath Keepers.

                  Keep an eye on your local Sheriffs. They are the only ones who have the power, and possibly the motivation, to protect you. Make sure you elect the right ones. They are the only power directly elected by the people who answer to no bureaucrat, government agent, or politician.

          2. and the beauty supply store!

    2. You called it dude. I said they would indict him. And you were right. They didn't. Serves me right for having any faith in the justice system I guess.

      1. No matter how cynical you think you are, it's hard to keep up.

        1. Its the cynic's dilemma. Have I been cynical enough?

      2. I lost my faith in the justice system a long time ago.

        1. Prepare for your faith to be renewed Our injustice system is guaranteed to never let you down.

      3. Fuck those juries and their "Due process." We need LIBERTARIAN justice!

  2. I'll be the one to say it: If he can get indicted despite irrefutable video evidence, why should I believe that body cams will make a difference?

    I'm not trolling or being a Tony or some bullshit. I'm serious. Red Pill me on this shit. How will body cams make a difference considering THIS?

    1. Quite a few of us are agreement with you. They should have cameras, but they will not solve the problem. Only holding the police accountable will change them.

      1. While I agree that body cameras are by no means a panacea, they are certainly worth the cost. More video evidence increases the likelihood of public knowledge of police brutality.

        Sure it won't change things overnight but it could certainly help.

        1. They should put them on members of congress also.

        2. I said they should have the cameras, I just don't think they will fix anything by themselves. Too many people will say "put the cameras on them" and then walk away thinking the problem is all taken care of.

          1. In some ways, they are right. The idea is that the more outrage there is, the more angry the public will get, and the harder it will be for the powers that be to ignore the outrage. So yes, get the cameras out there, and wait while the anger builds, nothing more to do except spotlight police who turn the cameras off, keep stoking the outrage.

            1. Good thought.

              The cameras should not have an off button and should broadcast to the cloud 24/7.

    2. If nothing else, it takes away the argument that "We don't know what happened and we need to defer to the cops." But yeah, even then...

    3. Video evidence didn't help the cops who killed Kelly Thomas get punished either. I'm still numb from that.

      1. You know Widget.

        The only reason I canpossibly come up withas to why the beat that guy to death is this.

        We all have to admit that being a cop is a intensly stressful job. No doubt. All those fuckers did is take out their stress and frustrations by beating a mental handicapped homeless man to death thinking they weren't being watched.

        It makes me sick at my stomach when I see the pics of him in the hospital and watch the videos with audio of him screaming for his Daddy.

        He never so much as raised a fist at the police.

    4. Because there are places that aren't New York.

      1. Well duh!!! Only Cincinnati really matters!

    5. Body cameras will not directly affect the outcome of any single bad act by a cop.

      The accumulation of video over time may change public opinion enough to overcome the unions and politicians.

      Nothing will happen until the police become a liability to elected officials.

      1. The accumulation of video over time may change public opinion enough to overcome the unions and politicians.

        If youtube hasn't done that already, nothing will.

        1. youtube shows a trivial number of interactions between the police and the people.

          We need mountains of video tape that shows just how pervasive the problems are. Right now, they are still "isolated incidents".

          1. I'm far more skeptical. I've got a slew of friends who could watch videos like this all day and still bow down and kiss the boot. It's always the citizens' fault. Had they just "obeyed police orders" or "had common sense" they would still be alive. For them, it seems literally impossible that the police could ever do wrong. And the sad part is that most of those people supposedly believe in "small government."

            I think what we need is a serious reevaluation of what we believe about the relationship of the individual to the state. When pressed on issues like this, even those who ostensibly believe in limited government reveal themselves to be state worshippers. No matter how small they think government should be, they always grant it the power to blast people with guns almost without question. If we're ever to see lessened, it will depend upon our willingness to route around state law enforcement.

      2. The accumulation of video over time *may* change public opinion enough to overcome the unions and politicians.

        May, but it's dubious. Considering the heinous crimes that I've seen committed by police on video, the heinous crimes I've seen documented by police without video (Officer shoots dog, missing boy found in own home-type stories), and the assymmetric public outrage over shady incidents like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, I'm inclined to believe things won't change.

    6. Well, I would like to think that if cameras were widely adopted, the inevitable tidal wave of police abuse videos would turn more and more people against the police.

      1. Perhaps a weekly television series "When COPS Attack!" will turn the tide.

        1. America's Scariest Home Videos.

    7. Cameras won't solve the problem, but I don't think they are pointless. But they should give some people less reason to just take cops at their word and make it harder for police to just lie. Even if it just nibbles at the margin, it's a move in the right direction. It also seems like the grand jury was probably very sympathetic to police (see comments about Staten Island below).

      1. Body cameras are necessary, not sufficient to solving the problem.

    8. You are right. I can't argue with you. Worse still, body cameras might get the public inured to police brutality such that even scenes of cops murdering people in cold blood will stop inducing any disapproval.

      1. Cops will start killing even more people once it becomes clear that they can get away with it with a body camera. Obey or die will cease to be a snark and become actual policy.

        1. I don't think so. Rodney King made a lot of difference in people's attitudes, in spite of him being the calendar boy for old fashioned cop street justice.

    9. You mean "if he CAN'T get indicted," right?

    10. Don't seem to be trolling. If you think you're being a Tony you really don't know Tony.

  3. Seriously though, this was a forgone conclusion. Because when a cop is involved, there is no prosecutor. Only a government lawyer acting as the cop's defendant.

    1. You sons of bitches are lucky you even got a chance at an indictment. NOW SUBMIT.

    2. Interesting that the grand jury was in Staten Island. No wonder they didn't indict. Officer Pantaleo probably had several extended family members or neighbors on the jury.

      1. Ginny bastard!

          1. WOP's up? How's your dago?

            1. Well, let me tell you something, my kraut-mick friend!

              1. Hey, you better calm down. That's a good way to end up with a severed animal head under your sheets!

              2. Well, let me tell you something, my kraut-mick friend!

                That's crout-mick-frog to you!

              3. Mick-kraut [McKraut].

      2. Seriously, Richmond County is Cop Land. Every non-immigrant on the Island is either a family member of or good friends with a current or retired NYPD member. PBA gold cards might as well be given out with car registration renewal letters.

      3. The kid would still be alive had he used a little sense and joined one of the big crime families like the mob or the NYPD instead of going small time peddling "loosies" on the street.

  4. He barely even resisted. And even after he complains that he can't breathe, they still sit on him.

    1. That's because his complaint was clearly a trick IDIOT!

    2. He was EARNING A LIVING on the street, while breaking a questionable, possibly idiotic, law. It was the law that made his commercial activity illegal.

      He was NOT STEALING. He was EARNING A LIVING, acting as a seller to a buyer. That was all.

      This is wrong on so many levels.

      1. I love the notion that this is Obama's jobs program.

        Dammit, one less ACA enrollee!

        1. Does anyone still remember Obama in 2008 giving the cops a wink and telling them as president he'll "always have their back" [covered]?

      2. Completely agree. Garner was simply exercising his natural right to be a capitalist within a free market place. Very commendable. And while I may respect him for that, the big shots don't believe we little people have a right to participate.

  5. Seriously, shit likes this makes me worried. It just throws more powder into the keg. Sooner or later, something is going to trigger a real backlash. You're either going to get a crowd that doesn't just stand around and let the cops do this, and it's going to get ugly. Or you see nationwide unrest similar to Ferguson. How many more times can people see the system fail before they start to violently turn on it?

    1. I'd like a real backlash sooner rather than later, but somehow I just keep thinking of what Mr. Universe says in Firefly.

      "There is no news. There is only the truth of the signal. What I see. And, there's the puppet theater the Parliament jesters foist on the somnambulant public."

      Eventually folks are going to wake up, but when?

    2. How many more times can people see the system fail before they start to violently turn on it?

      Considering the parade of rationalizations that have followed the recent cases, I'm sure most people will argue themselves out of any sense of outrage that would motivate them.

      I mean, when you can gin up a smear campaign against a 12-year-old, you can excuse anything.

      1. Oh people are getting real violent. They can't wait for another innocent black person to be murdered so that they can get they loot on.

        1. Fuck off, you boring cunt.

          1. Did you get yourself a nice TV?

          2. Sorry to hear you arrived a little late to get the really good stuff.

      2. That is disgusting.

      3. Sins of the father...

        1. Update: A line has been added to this story to give insight into the motivation to investigate the parents' background.

          What unarmed 12 yr. old boy shot by police? I don't see any... look! Over there! A black man with a troubled past and history of drug trafficking!

          Holy Fuck.

      4. Sugar Free, did you reaad the first comment on the link ?

        Darnell Jackson 6 hours ago
        Dear White People,

        As a Black Man, it's completely relevant. Because any black parent would have to be out of their mind to let their black child run down to the park with an air gun made to look realistic as hell! Not only that, but without the orange band that Cops are trained to look for so this exact thing doesn't happen! So I ask myself: "What were these parents thinking....Ohhhhh. Now it makes sense." You see this is totally relevant, but you wouldn't know because with names like "Szewczyk" & "Uri" you don't have to worry about this happening. But just a little insight: As a BLACK parent, letting their BLACK son go to the park with what looks like an assault rifle(!) these parents might as well have just shot their kid themselves. The hood-rat parents should be the ones on trial. But you don't understand any of this, most likely. Instead you can just get on down with your white liberal outrage! Yeah, thanks. We black folk love when you non-racist, good liberal white folk get outraged over our "oppression", then go out and buy the newest Cornel West book and put it in your NPR book-bag. Yeah, thanks. Weee! Jeezuz.


        Poor Oppressed Black Man?

        (as heard on NPR, MSNBC, & Democracy Now!)

        No way for me to know if it really is a black dude posting, but it still makes sense.

    3. It won't be televised. And YouTube will probably ban it.

  6. So,let's hear the cop lovers spin this.Never ,ever,trust a cop.I will not be shocked if the cop who murdered the 12 year old walks. On a side not,congress can hold hearings on domestic violence in sports.They ignore the profession with the highest rate of DV by far,police.

    1. Uh, you don't need to spin a story that like 7 or 8 people are ever going to read.

    2. Well the grainy surveillance footage clearly showed the kid not putting his hands up when ordered, so we can be positive that there will be no indictment.
      (That assumes the cops are telling the truth about ordering him to put up his hands, which I doubt since I believe absolutely nothing a cop says unless there is video and audio to back it up.)

      1. I believe a cop if he says he wants a doughnut no matter what!

      2. Or he told him to drop the weapon and shoot him when he went to pull it out of his waistband.

        Of course, he shoots him less than two seconds after he got out of the patrol car. "PUT YOUR HANDS UP!" BLAM!

        1. It wouldn't surprise me if one yelled "Drop it!" while the other yelled "Hands up!" making it impossible to comply.

          Watching Airplane Repo a while back, one of the guys got the plane but left the paperwork behind. Cops arrived at the airport while he was refueling. They came at him with their guns drawn, shouting conflicting orders at the guy. He said something to them like "Which is it? What do you want me to do?" He's lucky to be alive.

        2. At this point I think police should have to wait until someone is actually shooting at them before firing on anyone. Fuck 'em, it's their job to expose themselves to danger so that most people don't have to. I'm sure more innocent people have died this way than police have because they showed too much restraint in use of force.

          1. Cops are trained to go home to their families. Restraint is not something to even be considered. They are trained to escalate the moment they are not obeyed, and to keep escalating until they are obeyed or the other person is dead. And then go home to their family.

            1. I've been staying home a lot more lately. For we citizens it's the best bet for going home to our families. Unless we have to, just don't leave in the first place.

            2. sarcasmic|12.3.14 @ 3:07PM|

              "Cops are trained to go home to their families. Restraint is not something to even be considered. They are trained to escalate the moment they are not obeyed, and to keep escalating until they are obeyed or the other person is dead. And then go home to their family."

              Internet winner for today.

              1. Sarcasmic is the internet winner for a lot of days.

          2. Or, you know, use the taser. That's what they were adopted for, i.e. situations where deadly force might be justified, but is not clearly justified. Instead they are just torture devices used on those that fail to obey.

          3. The number of officers shot while on duty continues to fall. While the number of victims of police shootings continues to climb. There are people that see this as evidence of success.

          4. Hundreds of Police Killings Are Uncounted in Federal Stats

            Enter this in Google and then click the Wall Street Journal link. It should breach their pay wall. Included in the artical is this:

            A Wall Street Journal analysis of the latest data from 105 of the country's largest police agencies found more than 550 police killings during those years were missing from the national tally or, in a few dozen cases, not attributed to the agency involved. The result: It is nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year.

          5. At this point I think police should have to wait until someone is actually shooting at them before firing on anyone.

            At this point? The presumption of innocense suggests the person pointing a weapon isn't guilty until they use the weapon to endanger someone's life. Add the whole public servant, officers of the peace, etc. and the only justification of shoot first scenarios are those where victims, potential victims, and bystanders are immediately threatened. Even then, shooting first escalates the threat, however briefly, before it eliminates it. IF it eliminates it.

            I'm with John that the law should be set so that police should rarely need their guns.

    3. And illegal drug use.

  7. So what do we do with these grossly incompetent, unionized, public-sector employees? A jury cannot see them as criminals. I find that vaguely understandable in the way a tractor-trailer operator who falls asleep at the wheel is not a criminal. Rubber rooms?

    1. The only thing the populace can really do is abandon the cities and re-ruralize. The only ones left in the cities will be the poor and their government employee overseers and the overseers of the overseers.

      1. Like Detroit then.

  8. "Chokeholds such as the one seen in the image are prohibited in the NYPD's rule book" So, I can expect his employment to be terminated any day now right?

  9. The fact of the matter is that cops rarely are indicted, despite whatever evidence there might be against them. It's mostly a problem with how the American justice system is set up: popularly-elected political DA's control the course of the entire prosecution. They don't want to run afoul of the police departments and/or be painted by a political opponent as "protecting criminals over cops" and, hence, will likely sabotage the prosecution whenever they can, either by presenting a poor case to the grand jury (which are secret proceedings) or by presenting a poor case at trial.

    Even in a very rare instance when a DA is politically motivated to get a conviction -- the Oakland Fruitvale BART station shooting a couple years back comes to mind -- juries are extremely unlikely to convict; the "line of duty" defense is extremely powerful.

    Not to mention, judges overseeing criminal trials are also popularly-elected and unconsciously (or deliberately) favor the defense for the same political reasons a DA would.

    1. I'm willing to give up on indictments so long as the cop winds up impoverished and living in the streets.

    2. I think all states should copy Wisconsin law requiring all police-related deaths be reviewed by an outside agency. Combine that with body cameras and I think we'd be in pretty good shape.

    3. Prosecutors and judges get "friend" treatment from the police. If they call 911, the cops will respond immediately. If they are caught driving drunk they'll be given a ride home instead of to jail. It goes both ways.

      1. I got out of a DUI once becuase I was drinking with a prosecutor.

    4. So what's the solution? Have DAs be appointed or civil service? Abolish grand juries and allow anyone to bring a case on information? Put it on TV and have a popular vote?

  10. We are so fucked.

  11. ...popularly-elected political DA's control the course of the entire prosecution...

    DA is, or should be, a technical position. Makes me wonder why he is elected at all. No one thinks the City Engineer or Public Works Director should be elected. A bit too much DEMOCRACY.

    1. Your choice is elected official or un-fireable bureaucrat. Takes your pick.

      1. No matter where you turn, there's people. It's always people. People who are in charge, or take orders from others who are in charge. Somebody's always got to decide, there's no escaping it. You could make their selection random; you could even make their decision random. Then it's up to a coin toss, but someone's still going to be tossing it.

        1. County Sheriffs are the ony power directly elected by the people who answer to no bureaucrat or politician.

          There is our answer.

  12. So I guess it's time to start practicing prostrating ourselves before our porcine overlords and pray that they are feeling merciful that day. American law enforcement culture is beginning to resemble feudal Japan.

    1. I keep saying we live in a feudal system with different costumes.

      1. Yes, costumes are very important. If you are going to bend or break the law, wear golf attire. Michael Brown would alive today if had dressed like Lee Elder.

        1. This is true. And it's why I have a golfing bumper sticker on my truck even though I don't golf.

  13. Don't worry. This issue will soon be dropped by the activists. They actually enjoy widespread outrage in this case, thus its not good for creating racial division and strife.

    As they say divide and conquer...

  14. The term "chokehold" is deceptive, it is actually a carotid hold. It cuts blood flow to the brain, not actually cutting air off as in a choke.

    1. Considering the force required to collapse the carotid (and fat and musculature) is frequently higher than that required to collapse the windpipe, the name is apt.

      I'm sure positional asphyxiation played a role here as well. At least, a properly applied carotid or chokehold doesn't usually progress with the victim clearly saying "I can't breathe." the way positional asphyxiation does.

      1. Yeah.

        He was a fat overweight guy who had several cop knees pushing him down on the concrete while one choked him and that caused a medical series of events that he died from.

        As long as they didn't actually choke him he not as dead.

  15. I don't understand why police can't use Tasers to subdue someone who refuses to cooperate... the amount of force needs to fit the crime. Why be this aggressive for selling cigarettes??? This is very different from Michael Brown who committed a robbery, refused to cooperate, assaulted a police officer, attempted to get the officers gun, refused to obey a direct command after all of this...and then charged the officer. Violence begets violence... But this for selling loose cigarettes?

    1. Michael Brown apparently paid for the cigars, as shown by the video (although I can't really tell if the "cash" exchanged was actually cash). He did shove the store employee. A customer reported a robbery in progress.

      I wouldn't recommend a taser in this situation. I don't understand why selling untaxed cigs is an arrestable offense. They don't arrest kids for selling unlicensed lemonade.

      I'm guessing the cops are acting as agents for the anti-cig hysteria that perpetuated by the very people who now march in Ferguson.

      1. They don't arrest kids for selling unlicensed lemonade.

        You haven't been paying attention. Cops have been onto the kids lemo stand racket for awhile. Here is one.


    2. "Why be this aggressive for selling cigarettes???"

      Oh.. I don't know.

      Loss of government revenue perhaps ?

      Just guessing.

  16. The judicial system is rigged!

    All Levels of Law Enforcement Should Make Policy that Polygraphs for New Hires Expire Every 5yrs. (Including hires for higher ranking positions)

    National Institute of Ethics: Police Code of Silence - Facts Revealed ~ http://t.co/WNrpRE5

    DoD: Random Lie -Detector Tests Increase Personnel Security. (8-6-12) ~ http://t.co/Tr7uafTd ( "the polygraph is the most effective tool for finding information people are trying to hide"

    The good, brave officers with integrity deserve better. And so does the public....................

    Cameras to help fight Misconduct. Polygraphs to help fight Corruption.

    If officers knew that these tools were in place, maybe they would think twice before breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

    Break the Code. Break the Culture.

  17. Is it sad that this guy died? Of course. Could he have done something differently, oh I don't know like maybe comply with the cops request and not resisted? Yeah, of course. Just because you disagree with a law or a cops request doesn't mean it's prudent to break it or resist arrest. I'll let you in on a little secret, once a cop has told you that you are under arrest. No amount of explaining is gettign you out of it. You may as well just comply and go to court where you will get a chance to explain. Does it suck? Sure, but that doesn't mean fighting with the cops is ok. I get so tired of the excuse that the police are racist thugs. In this instance the guy wasn't killed because he was black, he was killed because he put himself in a situation to have some other human put him in a choke hold. Whether you agree with the law he was breaking or not (I don't), it is STILL the law and he knew it. The scenario could have just have easily been him getting pepper sprayed, falling, cracking his skull and dying. The point being the catalyst was his refusal to comply that took this in a direction it didn't need to go. If he had just turned around and let them cuff him, he'd still be alive pleading his case in court, rather than pleading it on the street. It's pretty fucking simple. Once you start fighting, anyone, regardless of training, you take your life into your own hands, Any number of uncontrollable or accidental circumstances can occur.

    1. You need a wipe for your chin.

    2. This is very simple...even if somebody resists arrest and does not?act as he is told by the cops, that is not justification for the cops to murder him. Specially when there are 6 of them over the man and he was in no real position to offer any resistance. That makes all your post simple and complete shit.

  18. It isn't easy to stop bad or incompetent people from being who they are, whether cop, politician or average Joe. But what we can do is start getting rid of the huge number of laws that require police intervention. Selling cigarettes without charging tax should not be a crime requiring police intervention. Maybe a meter maid should give out a $10 ticket for that, but no arrest. Get rid of the drug war and all laws against non-violent, consensual activity (like selling anything to anyone) and let the police handle murderers, burglars, etc.

  19. I will never second guess a police officer who already has a difficult job but this seemed excessive if the only violation was selling cigarettes illegally. Unless something else happened where he provoked the police but, again, with so many police on the scene was it necessary to maul the guy? Just saying...again, I don't know ALL the facts so I am not going to judge but it does look bad for the police considering we aren't talking about a murderer or pedophile or someone despicable that, frankly, deserves more than a choke-hold (that's a discussion for another day). The article doesn't really say anything of substance in terms of WHY police had to use these tactics....unless the guy was a violent offender for other things....

    1. There's no suggestion it was even the cigarets this time. It was a matter of his drawing att'n to himself by breaking up a fight on the street, and then the cops see him & think, "Oh, you again? The guy who we've busted before for selling cigarets, but never got a conviction? Well, whatever's causing a commotion now, we've got you marked as a troublemaker."

  20. Since I started with my online business I earn $42 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out.

    == BEST FAMILY DEAL .. ?W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  21. Apparently, an NYPD officer can only use the chokehold if his or her life is in danger, but that's not what happened here. Are there any other allowances for using that maneuver?

    I'm sure the GJ heard about this, and the coroner's report, which ruled the death a homicide (and how his poor health condition contributed to his death). But this might be less of a slam dunk than the Kelly Thomas incident, since the guy did resist arrest, and the officers probably did not know about his health conditions.

    If I were on the GJ, I would find probable cause for at least negligent homicide or something to that effect. But I wasn't actually there, so I don't know what other evidence or witnesses were presented.

  22. It's a sad commentary that cops have to arrest someone for selling individual cigarettes, and yes cops have to enforce a lot of laws I disagree with and some do brutalize people, but if they do have to arrest someone, what is it they did wrong in this case. First off that wasn't really a choke hold he was taken down with and if this guy was in the act of, let's say, raping someone, would we be having a problem with what happened?

  23. Here's an interesting perspective on former cop, who says the "chokehold" was actually a "headlock".


    Here's what caught my eye -

    "A top medical examiner (who can't publicly fault the city ME) tells me it was very irresponsible for the Medical Examiner's Office to issue the press release stating that Garner's death was caused by a chokehold (with asthma, heart disease and obesity as contributing factors) and ruling his death a homicide.

    Two big points: 1) The final autopsy report hasn't been released. We don't have the full story, just headlines. 2) "Homicide" only means that one person has caused the death of another.

    The term has no bearing on intent or recklessness. The ME's press release only poured oil on an already fiery situation."

    IMO, there was enough on that tape to charge the officer with SOMETHING. Maybe there were more details we don't know about?

  24. It's bad enough to make a crime out of selling loose cigarettes to begin with. But what kind of deviant, low-life, chickenshit MFers does it take to actually enforce it?

  25. Unless it's your callous intention to get someone, or their dogs, murdered, permanently disabled or at minimum tossed into a gladiator cage you just do NOT send the cops after anyone.

  26. I had two encounters with police when I was a young adult where I raised hell with them and was far more vocal and vulgar with the police than Eric Garner ever was. I was a big man at that time, just as Eric Garner, standing 6'2" and weighing well over 200 lbs. Yet the police never felt intimidated or threatened enough to use physical force against me. I never once suffered at the hands of police, and I find it hard to believe that the fact of my skin color had nothing to do with the outcome of my encounters with them. Just as I cannot believe that the fact or Eric Garner's skin color had nothing to do with the outcome of his encounter with the NYPD.?

  27. On balance I think Brown and Martin did enough to warrant being shot.

    But the Garner killing pisses me off. And not just because the poor bastard said he couldn't breathe, and they still choked him to death. It's murder.

    The guilt for this extends to the nameless bureaucrats and politicians who makes thousands of petty laws that force harmless citizens doing harmless crap like selling cigarettes into conflict with state authorities who will use all and any force to coerce you.

    This BS is inevitable in a society where normal behavior is criminalized.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.