Skip to comments.Grand Jury Declines to Indict NYPD Officer in Eric Garner Chokehold Death: Sources
Posted on 12/03/2014 11:28:41 AM PST by dead
A New York City grand jury has declined to indict an NYPD officer in the chokehold case of Eric Garner, the unarmed man who died while being arrested on Staten Island earlier this year.
In opting not to indict, the panel determined there was not probable cause that a crime was committed by NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo, who was seen on a widely watched amateur video showing him wrapping his arm around Garner's neck as Garner yelled, "I can't breathe!" during the summer altercation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnewyork.com ...
“Why did not Wilson have the means and training to take Brown down, perhaps seriously wounding him, without killing him?”
He already shot him several times during the charge and that didn’t stop the thug—as he staggered and then resumed the charge.
Doesn’t that count as “wounding” him?
“To make matters worse, we have the cops can do no wrong crowd”
And we have the “To make matters worse, we have the cops can do good crowd”
“Against policy” means he had no legal authority to use a chokehold. Therefore it was an illegal assault.
I don’t think it was even a choke hold.
Yes, did not appear to be so.
If as a police officer you’re not authorized to use a choke hold then it’s an illegal assault.
I hope you have never used one of those daily “vitamin” containers when you travel. If you have used one and if you actually used it for perscription medicine, then you have committed a Felony!
Yes, it is illogical, but only one example of probably thousands.....
If it is illegal it is defined as illegal in the Penal Code.
Not in the Penal Code, not illegal. I would very much like to read the statute that defines what an 'illegal assault' is. That would be good to know. Since you refer to an 'illegal assault' then you much be aware of the Penal Code that defines such an act, that lists the elements of the crime.
No matter how much you wish it to be true, emotions do not define the law—the Penal Code does.
So you are saying if you used that takedown on some guy attacking a loved one, then you acted illegally.
As stated before, not following policy is not the same as breaking the law.
Until you can quote the relevant statute, then your argument is baseless and emotionally based.
Have a nice day and I look forward to reading the statute when you find it and post it.
N.Y. PEN. LAW § 120.25 : NY Code - Section 120.25: Reckless endangerment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person. Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony.
This is satisfied when the victim said he could not breathe and the officer continued with the choke hold evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person.
There you go. You're welcome.
The decedent was just standing there when he was tackled from behind and had no way to get on his side which would have prevented his arteries from squishing which is what killed him. If you think taxes on cigarettes is a crime, then, congratulations. You have passed the group think course and will be ready when they come for you.
Pockets should be outlawed. Reaching into one’s pocket can get you shot dead by law enforcement. Since the Patriot Act, bad cops (or the newbie cops) are assuming that citizens are the enemy and their first thought is to use their firearm. That should be the last resort. No more pockets - people are dead cuz cops thinks pockets mean there’s a weapon.
Perhaps we should stop all this silly nonsense about the Constitution and just acknowledge that our badge-bearing betters are more suited to ruling us than we are. Who are we mere citizens to presume to tell our betters how best to rule us? Seems to me our experiment with self-rule is now a failure when supposed Constitutionalists are explaining away a tyranny our Founders would’ve opposed with every fiber of their being.
Mr Duh: I was commenting on the law as it is written, not as some feel it should be. Please tell me where I expressed an opinion supporting the police?
It seems you were implying that this fella was a criminal. This guy didn't even get due process yet you implied he was a criminal. Sounds pro bad cop to me.
Maybe you should say "alleged" criminal to avoid being put in with the group thinkers who believe all cops are good.
He had an extensive criminal record and was engaged in a criminal act. . .therefore, a criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.