So, in deciding whether a grand jury should have indicted Garner, we should assess the following questions:
1.Was there any intent by the officers to kill Garner? That would certainly be an uphill case to make, as the grand jury likely found.
2.Did the “chokehold” kill Garner, or did his pre-existing health conditions kill him? If Garner had otherwise been healthy, would he have died from use of the “chokehold”?
3.If not, would use of the “chokehold” have been reckless?
4.Was the use of the “chokehold” reasonable use of force rather than excessive use of force? Was the “chokehold” necessary to subdue him?
Were the actions of the police reasonable in light of the assumed infraction, ie selling untaxed cigarettes? Clear answer is NO.
Did the actions of the police contribute to his death? Clear answer is YES.
We it murder? NO.
Negligent homicide? YES.
However, the prosecutor recognized that if he/she was to go aggressively after the officers involved, the wrath of the police would make the prosecutors job almost impossible. Thus the prosecutor did not push for an indictment, regardless of what was reported. Just the way things work.
“Was there any intent by the officers to kill Garner? “
Not necessary for manslaughter or negligent homicide.
“Did the “chokehold” kill Garner, or did his pre-existing health conditions kill him? “
also not necessary. The Coroner ruled the decedent died from a injuries caused by the cops.
“If not, would use of the “chokehold” have been reckless?”
The use of that hold is proscribed by the NYC PD. The cop violated published procedure. End of story.
“Was the use of the “chokehold” reasonable use of force rather than excessive use of force?”
NYC PD policy already covers this. See above.
Did the officer kill the man recklessly-yes
Was it racism-no
So let me get this straight.
Say two Joe citizens get into a very short scuffle.
One has a pre existing condition and dies as a result of the confrontation.
The liver is safe due to pre existing?
Now, they are reporting it was Not a chokehold on Fox.
the article states that the term chokehold is not what the officer applied. the officer applied a submission hold. the police chief later mistakenly called the officer’s action a choke hold, but it was not a choke hold and there was no damage to the windpipe as there ordinarily would have been had a choke hold been applied. the article states that a submission hold is permitted by nypd procedure. the article states that gardner was resisting arrest when the officer applied the submission hold.
if anyone resists arrest, this gives a police officer justification to use physical force to effect the arrest (eg put the suspect in handcuffs and otherwise physically detain the suspect in a manner that does not put the arresting officers’ lives at risk but does not overly escalate force). i do not see where a submission hold can be judged to be an escalation of force. the guy resisted arrest, the officer used a submission hold.
in any physical altercation, an unanticipated event such as a heart attack might occur. the proximal cause of the heart attack might be the physical altercation during the arrest. technically, the arrestee suffered from a homicide, but were the officer’s actions justified?
the question i think is whether the submission hold constituted an unwarranted escalation of force. if not, then the homicide imho would be viewed as incidental if not accidental. there must be a small statistical percentage of risk involved in submission holds in which the person being held might suffer a fatal injury due to preexisting conditions, such as a heart attack.
standard disclaimer, IANAL, etc., and also i do not take defending police lightly.
If you or I picked a fight with Gardner, got into a wrestling match with him, put him in a choak hold and he subsequently died of a heart attack, is there any doubt in your mind that we would have been indicted on some charge relating to his death?
I don’t think the officer meant to kill Garner, but that was the unnecessary effect of the application of excessive force.
Watching the video, I can come up with half a dozen ways of handling that so that nobody gets hurt.
Why can’t cops think?
Facts don’t matter to the lunatics.
Bull. The DA decided not to let the grand jury consider any lesser changes. This was protection of the “thin blue line” and corruption most foul of the judicial process.
There is no doubt the officer did not commit first degree murder, but other lesser charges should have been presented... Manslaughter, wreckless endangerment, etc etc etc.
This was the DA protecting the cop and doing so by making sure the charges they could consider would never be met. I do not believe race had anything to do with this, but it clearly was corruption and collusion to let this cop who screwed up royally, and the PD department by extension, get away without criminal prosecution.