Posted on 12/12/2014 9:36:14 AM PST by Kaslin
In this column, I recently argued in favor of a grand jury’s refusal to indict Officer Dan Pantaleo for the death of Eric Garner. To my dismay (and, frankly, shock), a great many “conservatives” and “libertarians,” I’ve had the great misfortune to discover, disagree vehemently with the grand jury’s decision. Some have gone so far as to describe Garner’s death as murder.
Bear in mind, the critics’ knowledge of this case extends no further than a 15 second or so video of the fatal arrest and the fact that Garner was illegally selling cigarettes. That’s it. It is coupled by their belief—one that I share, by the way—that this offense of Garner’s should not be a criminal offense at all. Thus, the police, so goes the reasoning, never should’ve placed him under arrest in the first place
The police, though, are not authorized to be selective with respect to the laws that they enforce: Officers of the law are obligated to enforce the laws—whether they personally believe that the laws are just or unjust, good or bad.
New information has surfaced since my last article on this subject that sharpens that much more the contrast between the critics’ state of knowledge regarding this whole situation with that of the grand jury.
For months, twenty-three strangers, black, white, and Hispanic, poured over 60 items of evidence. These included four videos—i.e. significantly more footage than that on which the pontificators in the media and elsewhere have been feeding; medical records; autopsy photographs; photos from the scene of the alleged crime; and information on NYPD policies, procedures, and officer training.
Also among the evidence was testimony on the part of 50 witnesses. No fewer than 22 of these witnesses were civilians. The remainder consists of police officers, EMTs, and doctors.
The grand jury also received instruction in the “relevant principles of law” concerning an officer’s right to use force.
Officer Pantaleo explained that he did not apply a “chokehold” to Garner. Rather, he applied a move that he learned in the police academy, a move designed to “tip the person [being arrested or restrained] so that they lose their balance and go to the ground.” Though he heard Garner say that he couldn’t breathe, Pantaleo testified that given the former’s ability to speak, he didn’t think that that was actually the case. Nevertheless, he immediately released him and called the EMTs.
Pantaleo also added that he was fully aware that he was being videoed—but he didn’t mind. And he didn’t mind because he “knew” that he wasn’t “committing” any “misconduct.”
The grand jurors were in a position to evaluate Pantaleo’s account. They found that it was truthful.
The critics don’t like the outcome. But they have no argument. And how could they? To claim that the activity for which Garner was initially confronted by police never should have been a crime is wholly irrelevant to whether Officer Pantaleo acted lawfully or not in using force to bring Garner down, and even less relevant to the question of whether Pantaleo murdered Garner.
To argue—not emote, but argue—that the grand jury made the wrong decision, the aggrieved must challenge both the evidence that the jurors’ drew upon for their conclusion, as well as the reasoning that lead them from the one to the other.
As of yet, no one, as far as I’m aware, has attempted either course.
Actually, this has slipped off the news cycle now. It is the CIA’s turn in the barrel....
bttt
Darn them...they are basing their opinions solely on what happened.
If only he could convince Eric 'just-us' Holder of that fact.
Not shocking. There are more than a few libs here at FR who are wearing the "I cant breathe" t-shirt while willing to hand $$$ over to Garner's family as civil damages.
Holder’s boss has sworn to protect and defend the constitution and he doesn’t do that, so there’s no convincing Holder to enforce any laws.....
You are right though, as Obama does flout the law with impunity.
Bookmark
I'll refer you to Rodney King. The 10 seconds of video played endlessly on the TV news and commentary shows was damn clear that the officers involved went WAY over the line in the amount of force they used...
... unless you happened to watch the full two minutes version, which show King's repeated attempts to get up and run away. Put the whole scene is a different light - you could still argue excessive force, but it was no longer a slam dunk.
bkmk
Yes, me too. I was young at that time, and wasn’t paying too much attention, but I do remember him firing over Watergate break-in, which pales in comparison to what goes on in Washington now.
Having staked out the position that I do not second-guess grand juries I did not serve on, I won’t comment on the case, per se.
However, most of our procedural civil rights exist to restrain the power of the state. Their application to agents of the state, acting as agents of the state, particularly in contexts where sovereign immunity might also apply, might arguably be curtailed in the interest of the same purpose for which they exist in the first place.
While at trial the beyond a reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence standards should certainly apply to all, even agents of the state acting as such, it seem to me that it ought to be easier to return an indictment against a government official accused of misconduct (including police officers accused of excessive use of force) than it is to return an indictment against a private citizen accused of a crime. The reverse seems to be the case, and this should be a problem for all of us who believe in limited government.
The NY cop, just like the guy in Ferguson, did what they supposed to do, as they were trained to do, period.
It has been shown that Garner had a bunch of medical problems, that any thinking idiot would hold as reason to ‘not do that’.
It has been shown that the fool in Ferguson had a record of violence, and was too stupid, to stop.
both idiots came from the same gene pool labeled “stupid”.
Not the cops’ fault!
Garner's buddy claims there were no smokes, nor a bag of stuff in Garner's possession. I didn't see a bag in Garner's possession on the video. If it's Garner's buddy's word against the cops, I'm believing Garner's buddy, because if Garner had a history with the cops, the cops could just accuse him of selling "loosies", then pick a fight over it. The cops all had time to get their story straight after the SHTF.
What if the police picked the fight?
...and all the public has seen is a 15 second video.
That would have been me.
I didn't know about Garner's previous 30 arrests, 8 for the same 'crime' of selling loose cigarettes. Nor that he was basically a heart attack waiting to happen. Damn shame for someone to die over such a petty infraction, but the case has been made well here (on various posts) that the police had no other recourse for their actions. Called by various shop owners to deal with someone harassing their customers - and then met with resistance when they tried to arrest the individual (and the individual should not have been surprised that he was being arrested since he had been previously arrested 8 times for the same infraction) - there was going to be some physical confrontation required. And given Garner's fragile state, a taser blast probably would've also killed him. Damn shame - but bad stuff is going to happen when you are made out of thin glass and you put yourself in a position where you are going to get shook around.
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.