Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Grand Jury was NOT allowed to consider a reckless endangerment charge.
Quote:
Prosecutors left off the table a criminal charge that would have allowed a Staten Island grand jury to indict the cop who killed Eric Garner — even if the panel believed the officer didn’t intend to choke him to death, WNBC reported Friday.
It’s called reckless endangerment and all a majority on the grand jury would have needed to do is agree that Officer Daniel Pantaleo’s actions — clearly visible on a horrific cell phone video obtained by The Daily News — figured in Garner’s death.
But they never got the chance.
“District Attorney Daniel Donovan only asked grand jurors to consider manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide charges,” WNBC reported Friday.
Those charges are harder to get because they imply that the cop knew his actions could result in death or serious injury — and did them anyway.
The New York police officer who held Eric Garner in the chokehold that killed him has been sued three times for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of other blacks he and fellow cops arrested.
A 2013 federal court lawsuit alleges that Daniel Pantaleo, 29, and at least four other officers subjected Darren Collins and Tommy Rice to 'humiliating and unlawful strip searches in public view'.
Collins and Rice were handcuffed and searched for drugs after being arrested on Staten Island in March 2012. Charges against the two men were ultimately dismissed.
In an August 2014 letter to U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, Walker's defense lawyer Michael Colihan wrote: 'To put it mildly, many police on Staten Island have been playing fast, loose and violently with the public they seem to have forgotten they are sworn to protect.
Should our governments go ahead and legitimize what Pantaleo did? Should the death penalty be the prescribed punishment for disobeying an agent of the state?
If Garner had instead ran into traffic to avoid arrest and was hit by a car and killed, what would you think? Would the police still be guilty of killing him in your mind?
Should our governments go ahead and legitimize what Pantaleo did? Should the death penalty be the prescribed punishment for disobeying an agent of the state?
It already is legitimized. A "choke hold" is illegal, a "head lock" is legal. By every technical definition, the officer performed a legal "head lock". The suspect died of a heart attack while resisting arrest for what would have been his tenth conviction alone for selling cigarettes. The Black business owner called 9/11. The Black Sergeant & Black Precinct Chief you supervised the case. They could have tased him & he would likely have had the same heart attack.
Last edited by Mason3000; 12-05-2014 at 01:05 PM..
Some thoughts....random and in no particular order...
Mr. Garner would be alive if he didnt resist arrest.
Mr. Garner would not have been resisting arrest if the government (not the cops) didnt make cigs so expenisive in NY.
No one should die over selling a single cig...
Pantaleo didnt kill Mr. Garner. He didnt use a choke hold...
Mr Garners death may very well have been a result of ALL of the police on the scene not taking action once he was on the ground and unresponsive. (neglect after being subdued).
Now to answer the general question.
It really depends on what "disobeying an agent of the state looks like.
If a person refuses to cooperate with a police officer in the line of duty, and that person is then arrested, the police should take care of things in this order:
1. Their own protection. NO cop ought to die because some person decides they dont want to be arrested.
2. the innocent people that are in close proxemity to the situation.
3. The person being arrested.
You dont shoot someone for doing what Garner did. but you do have to arrest him and you do have to control him. BUT once subdued, you take care to make sure he is ok. In this case, the police did right to arrest (only because they are forced to...even though the laws that are in play are really really stupid uber-progressive-idiotic-government-overreach...
If the police just wrote him a ticket for selling cigarettes, Garner would still be alive today. The police overreacted with this situation and the end result was killing a man. Of course in NYC it is very easy for a cop to get away with murder.
Should our governments go ahead and legitimize what Pantaleo did? Should the death penalty be the prescribed punishment for disobeying an agent of the state?
You know he wasn't trying to intentionally kill him right?
Eric Garner did not expect to die. His life is over. His family has lost their father, friend, husband, son.
Because the police decided to pounce on this man, he died. He was a human being with rights. The police over-reacted and made a huge mistake. Huge, huge, mistake.
There are many more good police officers than bad. IMHO
From what I could see on the video, one of the officers was trying to help Mr. Garner.
Still think, #99. did not really know the situation and jumped in way too soon; trying to protect his fellow officers. Bad Call.
From what I understand, a defense attorney does not speak at a Grand Jury, so who speaks for the VICTIMS? Well, I guess there are millions speaking for the 3 people that recently died by the hands of sloppy, careless, police work.
No Eric made a huge, huge mistake and caused his own death, if he had put his hands behind his back and left them handcuff him, he'd still be alive, he fought the police.
As far as Eric is concerned, if he were still alive, I'm so glad he wasn't my husband or father, he embarrassed everyone who knew him, he was actually a small time hustler and thug....the police knew him of course, and when they went to handcuff him he resisted....period.
It already is legitimized. A "choke hold" is illegal, a "head lock" is legal. By every technical definition, the officer performed a legal "head lock". The suspect died of a heart attack while resisting arrest for what would have been his tenth conviction alone for selling cigarettes. The Black business owner called 9/11. The Black Sergeant & Black Precinct Chief you supervised the case. They could have tased him & he would likely have had the same heart attack.
The medical examiner ruled that his death was a homicide and that the officer did indeed preform a choke hold, not a head lock.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
