Being a cop is a ****** job.   I have no idea why anyone would willingly do it.   It's also a dangerous job.    I've known more than a few power-hungry ******** who wanted to be cops, or were cops, so they could be "in charge".    With all that said, we can't restrict them from restraining suspects when they resist arrest.   As I said with Wilson, it's so much easier to look the other way than to confront someone who's committing/committed a petty crime.   By saying "Yes, we want you to arrest criminals but, if a struggle ensues, you better hope they don't die.  Because, if they do, you're going to trial."

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Being a cop is a ****** job.   I have no idea why anyone would willingly do it.   It's also a dangerous job.    I've known more than a few power-hungry ******** who wanted to be cops, or were cops, so they could be "in charge".    With all that said, we can't restrict them from restraining suspects when they resist arrest.   As I said with Wilson, it's so much easier to look the other way than to confront someone who's committing/committed a petty crime.   By saying "Yes, we want you to arrest criminals but, if a struggle ensues, you better hope they don't die.  Because, if they do, you're going to trial."

"With all that said, we can't restrict them from restraining suspects when they resist arrest. " Had a struggle ensued, minus the choke hold, and Garner died, no one would be asking for an indictment. It's Pantaleo exceeding his authority that has people upset. He's not allowed to choke out a suspect, even a suspect resisting arrest. He did and it directly lead to Garner's death. That's, at a minimum, reckless endangerment. It's probably manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):
And? What's your point?

You asked if he was convicted of assault.   I'm assuming he was because it's on his record. 

That's my point, burnsyluck.

You said he was arrested for assault. That in itself doesn't mean much. Moving on.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I see it as an officer doing his job, a suspect(with a record) resisting arrest and an unfortunate outcome.   Garner certainly did nothing that should have ended in his death(unlike Brown) but the cop shouldn't be looking at prison time either.   Suspend him, fire him, send him to sensitivity training, whatever.   But don't clog up the courts with something like that. 

But he wasn't just "doing his job." He exceed his authority by using a choke hold. That choke hold was the proximate cause of death. How you can think that absolutely no crime was committed is baffling.

.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
I'm just trying to understand why you're so fixated on the idea that there's no reasonable chance that a crime occurred, based on the information given to you.

I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether or not a crime occurred.  And I have not offered a single opinion in this thread as to whether one did or not.

I'm just questioning your line of argument which seems to imply that the ME's noted cause of death as "homicide" inherently implies that a criminal act took place.  That's not the ME's job.  His/her job is to only determine the cause of death.  The determination of "criminal act" is made by the police, the DA's office, and the legal system.  Real life isn't a Patricia Cornwall novel.

It seems to me that there is a generally accepted medical definition of "homicide", and a NYS legal statute definition of "homicide".  To me, they are not necessarily the same thing.  Seeing that the ME is not a part of the legal system, I'm not sure why you are assuming that he/she is bound to use the legal definition of homicide when filling out a death certificate.

I'm certainly assuming that it's insane to not indict someone based on the idea of "we use different definitions, obviously he didn't commit a homicide."

A homicide was committed, according to the MEs report.  I assume he was using the definition of homicide as defined by the National Association of Medical Examiners since he himself was a Medical Examiner.  The legal system further determined that it was not a criminal homicide according to the statutes of New York State, hence no charges filed by the prosecutor and no indictment by the grand jury.

Does that clear things up?  Or do you want to continue your pissy squibbling over semantics?

No charges were filed. So it must be right.

Good argument.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):
And? What's your point?

You asked if he was convicted of assault.   I'm assuming he was because it's on his record. 

That's my point, burnsyluck.

You said he was arrested for assault. That in itself doesn't mean much. Moving on.

If the cop had a history of police brutality, would that mean anything as it relates to this case?

Don't be dense.   Intentional or otherwise. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I see it as an officer doing his job, a suspect(with a record) resisting arrest and an unfortunate outcome.   Garner certainly did nothing that should have ended in his death(unlike Brown) but the cop shouldn't be looking at prison time either.   Suspend him, fire him, send him to sensitivity training, whatever.   But don't clog up the courts with something like that. 

But he wasn't just "doing his job." He exceed his authority by using a choke hold. That choke hold was the proximate cause of death. How you can think that absolutely no crime was committed is baffling.

.

He was attempting to restrain a suspect in a non-lethal manner.   That's what cops do.   He chose the wrong procedure.   Not a crime.  A violation of protocol.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I see it as an officer doing his job, a suspect(with a record) resisting arrest and an unfortunate outcome.   Garner certainly did nothing that should have ended in his death(unlike Brown) but the cop shouldn't be looking at prison time either.   Suspend him, fire him, send him to sensitivity training, whatever.   But don't clog up the courts with something like that. 

But he wasn't just "doing his job." He exceed his authority by using a choke hold. That choke hold was the proximate cause of death. How you can think that absolutely no crime was committed is baffling.

.

He was attempting to restrain a suspect in a non-lethal manner.   That's what cops do.   He chose the wrong procedure.   Not a crime.  A violation of protocol.

Could the argument be made that it was reckless?

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I see it as an officer doing his job, a suspect(with a record) resisting arrest and an unfortunate outcome.   Garner certainly did nothing that should have ended in his death(unlike Brown) but the cop shouldn't be looking at prison time either.   Suspend him, fire him, send him to sensitivity training, whatever.   But don't clog up the courts with something like that. 

But he wasn't just "doing his job." He exceed his authority by using a choke hold. That choke hold was the proximate cause of death. How you can think that absolutely no crime was committed is baffling.

.

He was attempting to restrain a suspect in a non-lethal manner.   That's what cops do.   He chose the wrong procedure.   Not a crime.  A violation of protocol.

Could the argument be made that it was reckless?

I won't pretend to know the proper police procedure for taking down a man twice your size.    As a civilian, I'd think "maximum force".   That was not maximum force.   Do you think he should have been zapped?   Baton to the knee?   What procedure would have made you happy?

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
I'm just trying to understand why you're so fixated on the idea that there's no reasonable chance that a crime occurred, based on the information given to you.

I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether or not a crime occurred.  And I have not offered a single opinion in this thread as to whether one did or not.

I'm just questioning your line of argument which seems to imply that the ME's noted cause of death as "homicide" inherently implies that a criminal act took place.  That's not the ME's job.  His/her job is to only determine the cause of death.  The determination of "criminal act" is made by the police, the DA's office, and the legal system.  Real life isn't a Patricia Cornwall novel.

It seems to me that there is a generally accepted medical definition of "homicide", and a NYS legal statute definition of "homicide".  To me, they are not necessarily the same thing.  Seeing that the ME is not a part of the legal system, I'm not sure why you are assuming that he/she is bound to use the legal definition of homicide when filling out a death certificate.

I'm certainly assuming that it's insane to not indict someone based on the idea of "we use different definitions, obviously he didn't commit a homicide."

A homicide was committed, according to the MEs report.  I assume he was using the definition of homicide as defined by the National Association of Medical Examiners since he himself was a Medical Examiner.  The legal system further determined that it was not a criminal homicide according to the statutes of New York State, hence no charges filed by the prosecutor and no indictment by the grand jury.

Does that clear things up?  Or do you want to continue your pissy squibbling over semantics?

No charges were filed. So it must be right.

Good argument.

It went through the legal process, and was adjudicated according to the rules of the New York legal process.

Do you disagree?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I see it as an officer doing his job, a suspect(with a record) resisting arrest and an unfortunate outcome.   Garner certainly did nothing that should have ended in his death(unlike Brown) but the cop shouldn't be looking at prison time either.   Suspend him, fire him, send him to sensitivity training, whatever.   But don't clog up the courts with something like that. 

But he wasn't just "doing his job." He exceed his authority by using a choke hold. That choke hold was the proximate cause of death. How you can think that absolutely no crime was committed is baffling.

.

He was attempting to restrain a suspect in a non-lethal manner.   That's what cops do.   He chose the wrong procedure.   Not a crime.  A violation of protocol.

It wasn't a non-lethal manner. It killed Garner.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I see it as an officer doing his job, a suspect(with a record) resisting arrest and an unfortunate outcome.   Garner certainly did nothing that should have ended in his death(unlike Brown) but the cop shouldn't be looking at prison time either.   Suspend him, fire him, send him to sensitivity training, whatever.   But don't clog up the courts with something like that. 

But he wasn't just "doing his job." He exceed his authority by using a choke hold. That choke hold was the proximate cause of death. How you can think that absolutely no crime was committed is baffling.

.

He was attempting to restrain a suspect in a non-lethal manner.   That's what cops do.   He chose the wrong procedure.   Not a crime.  A violation of protocol.

Could the argument be made that it was reckless?

I won't pretend to know the proper police procedure for taking down a man twice your size.    As a civilian, I'd think "maximum force".   That was not maximum force.   Do you think he should have been zapped?   Baton to the knee?   What procedure would have made you happy?

There's 4 cops there. Do something different, something that's allowed by the NYPD. At least attempt to get his hands behind his back. He's not threatening you. And if he was, what would you expect for him to do, with 4 cops there? Choking him out can easily be argued as reckless. Unless you're the DA. Then it's difficult, I guess.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 1:18:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, I see it as an officer doing his job, a suspect(with a record) resisting arrest and an unfortunate outcome.   Garner certainly did nothing that should have ended in his death(unlike Brown) but the cop shouldn't be looking at prison time either.   Suspend him, fire him, send him to sensitivity training, whatever.   But don't clog up the courts with something like that. 

But he wasn't just "doing his job." He exceed his authority by using a choke hold. That choke hold was the proximate cause of death. How you can think that absolutely no crime was committed is baffling.

.

He was attempting to restrain a suspect in a non-lethal manner.   That's what cops do.   He chose the wrong procedure.   Not a crime.  A violation of protocol.

Could the argument be made that it was reckless?

I won't pretend to know the proper police procedure for taking down a man twice your size.    As a civilian, I'd think "maximum force".   That was not maximum force.   Do you think he should have been zapped?   Baton to the knee?   What procedure would have made you happy?

There's 4 cops there. Do something different, something that's allowed by the NYPD. At least attempt to get his hands behind his back. He's not threatening you. And if he was, what would you expect for him to do, with 4 cops there? Choking him out can easily be argued as reckless. Unless you're the DA. Then it's difficult, I guess.

How many cops were around Rodney King?   That ****** kept coming. 

Again, you've never been a cop.  I don't think you're the arbiter of all things threatening.    Garner was a big man, with an extensive record, he apparently had no interest in being arrested. 

"You've never been an X, so you can't argue X things."

Cool.

Bill ******* O'Reilly believes the NYPD overreacted. This is actually very well said.

O'REILLY: Yes, both deceased men should have cooperated with the police officers who confronted them. But as we all know people do stupid things. In the Ferguson case Mr. Brown did engage in violence so I have no trouble, no trouble with the grand jury's decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the police officer.

But in the New York City case Mr. Garner clearly a low level offender was not a threat. American police are held to a very high standard because they have power. They have guns. They must control inflammatory situations not make them worse.

As we proved on Monday, generally speaking, American police do a great job across the board. The charlatans who say police are targeting young black men are completely shut down by the statistics which we have posted on billoreilly.com. But in the Garner case excessive force may have been used.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST: This ought to have been an indictment and it ought to have been an indictment for some form of manslaughter. It's not first degree murder. It's not second degree murder. But it's certainly reckless manslaughter.

O'REILLY: Unlike Judge Napolitano, I'm unwilling to say that Officer Daniel Pantaleo committed reckless manslaughter. What I will say is there was a police overreaction to Mr. Garner. And that should have been adjudicated in a court of law.