Two rules of life to follow:

1.  Don't break the law.
2.  If you do break the law, or the cops suspect you broke the law, don't fight or struggle with the cops.

If Brown/Garner had followed these simple rules, they'd be above ground today.

Garner wasn't threatening anyone. He had his hands in the air. It takes the cop 2 seconds to get from "we're going to arrest you" to "RESISTING ARREST! CHOKEHOLD!" There are a few cops there, it wasn't going to be that difficult to get his hands behind his back. The coroner called this a homicide (the STATES definition, Mike, not the google definition. It doesn't mean intent to murder). If someone else did this, it's a crime, and this person is probably going to jail, even though he obviously didn't mean to kill him. It's excessive, and the fact that this guy won't even go to trial on the lowest possible felony, because the DA doesn't want to **** off the NYPD, where the possible punishment could be as low as probation and at most 4 years, is amazing. That's all.

Posted by examinerebb on 12/4/2014 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 3:51:00 PM (view original):
You know what, **** it, might as well shoot him the moment he says "don't touch me." He might fight you. It's not like you're going to jail when you do it.

Exactly. In mike's world, the possibility that a criminal could commit a crime gives cops license to dole out any force they see fit without any fear of accountability.

It must be nice to be able to have blind faith in the people in power.

Says the guy who argued that we should support a deeply flawed healthcare law because they would fix it later.

I don't think I ever said that.

We should support health care reform in incremental steps knowing that we will never get massive reform immediately and that no law is perfect.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Garner wasn't threatening anyone. He had his hands in the air. It takes the cop 2 seconds to get from "we're going to arrest you" to "RESISTING ARREST! CHOKEHOLD!" There are a few cops there, it wasn't going to be that difficult to get his hands behind his back. The coroner called this a homicide (the STATES definition, Mike, not the google definition. It doesn't mean intent to murder). If someone else did this, it's a crime, and this person is probably going to jail, even though he obviously didn't mean to kill him. It's excessive, and the fact that this guy won't even go to trial on the lowest possible felony, because the DA doesn't want to **** off the NYPD, where the possible punishment could be as low as probation and at most 4 years, is amazing. That's all.

Bingo.

Again, people act like the grand jury is some sort of independent arbitrator of the facts. In reality, the grand jury is a tool of the prosecutor, used to get whatever result he wants.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Garner wasn't threatening anyone. He had his hands in the air. It takes the cop 2 seconds to get from "we're going to arrest you" to "RESISTING ARREST! CHOKEHOLD!" There are a few cops there, it wasn't going to be that difficult to get his hands behind his back. The coroner called this a homicide (the STATES definition, Mike, not the google definition. It doesn't mean intent to murder). If someone else did this, it's a crime, and this person is probably going to jail, even though he obviously didn't mean to kill him. It's excessive, and the fact that this guy won't even go to trial on the lowest possible felony, because the DA doesn't want to **** off the NYPD, where the possible punishment could be as low as probation and at most 4 years, is amazing. That's all.

Didn't you say he was resisting arrest?

Have you ever arrested anyone?

Are you sure you know how difficult it is to arrest someone, a large someone, who doesn't want to be arrested?

Do you think YOU should be in charge of determining how much force is required to arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested?



Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge what cops should/shouldn't do until you've worn a badge and walked a few days in those shoes.

As a citizen, I'm very comfortable saying how citizens should act.

1.  Don't break the law.
2.  If you do break the law, or the cops suspect you broke the law, don't fight or struggle with the cops.

I walk in those shoes every day.   I do know cops deal with the worst possible people on a frequent basis.   We're allowed to avoid them.   They are not.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Garner wasn't threatening anyone. He had his hands in the air. It takes the cop 2 seconds to get from "we're going to arrest you" to "RESISTING ARREST! CHOKEHOLD!" There are a few cops there, it wasn't going to be that difficult to get his hands behind his back. The coroner called this a homicide (the STATES definition, Mike, not the google definition. It doesn't mean intent to murder). If someone else did this, it's a crime, and this person is probably going to jail, even though he obviously didn't mean to kill him. It's excessive, and the fact that this guy won't even go to trial on the lowest possible felony, because the DA doesn't want to **** off the NYPD, where the possible punishment could be as low as probation and at most 4 years, is amazing. That's all.

Didn't you say he was resisting arrest?

Have you ever arrested anyone?

Are you sure you know how difficult it is to arrest someone, a large someone, who doesn't want to be arrested?

Do you think YOU should be in charge of determining how much force is required to arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested?



Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge what cops should/shouldn't do until you've worn a badge and walked a few days in those shoes.

You're right, the NYPD should decide that. They decided chokeholds were excessive in 1993.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Garner wasn't threatening anyone. He had his hands in the air. It takes the cop 2 seconds to get from "we're going to arrest you" to "RESISTING ARREST! CHOKEHOLD!" There are a few cops there, it wasn't going to be that difficult to get his hands behind his back. The coroner called this a homicide (the STATES definition, Mike, not the google definition. It doesn't mean intent to murder). If someone else did this, it's a crime, and this person is probably going to jail, even though he obviously didn't mean to kill him. It's excessive, and the fact that this guy won't even go to trial on the lowest possible felony, because the DA doesn't want to **** off the NYPD, where the possible punishment could be as low as probation and at most 4 years, is amazing. That's all.

Didn't you say he was resisting arrest?

Have you ever arrested anyone?

Are you sure you know how difficult it is to arrest someone, a large someone, who doesn't want to be arrested?

Do you think YOU should be in charge of determining how much force is required to arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested?



Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge what cops should/shouldn't do until you've worn a badge and walked a few days in those shoes.

You're right, the NYPD should decide that. They decided chokeholds were excessive in 1993.

Yep. Cops have to follow rules, too. "Kill him" is not the answer to, what do you do with a guy who is resisting arrest in the mildest way possible.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2014 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Garner wasn't threatening anyone. He had his hands in the air. It takes the cop 2 seconds to get from "we're going to arrest you" to "RESISTING ARREST! CHOKEHOLD!" There are a few cops there, it wasn't going to be that difficult to get his hands behind his back. The coroner called this a homicide (the STATES definition, Mike, not the google definition. It doesn't mean intent to murder). If someone else did this, it's a crime, and this person is probably going to jail, even though he obviously didn't mean to kill him. It's excessive, and the fact that this guy won't even go to trial on the lowest possible felony, because the DA doesn't want to **** off the NYPD, where the possible punishment could be as low as probation and at most 4 years, is amazing. That's all.

Didn't you say he was resisting arrest?

Have you ever arrested anyone?

Are you sure you know how difficult it is to arrest someone, a large someone, who doesn't want to be arrested?

Do you think YOU should be in charge of determining how much force is required to arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested?



Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge what cops should/shouldn't do until you've worn a badge and walked a few days in those shoes.

You're right, the NYPD should decide that. They decided chokeholds were excessive in 1993.

So the NYPD should suspend him.  Fire him.  Whatever they see fit.    It's not a homicide regardless of what you or the ME thinks.    He was trying to subdue a much larger man who was resisting arrest.   IOW, he was doing his job.

So the ME was wrong. OK. They should find a new one if the one they have calls something a homicide when it's not. Someone who's not a cop might go to jail if they do that again. They're ******* lucky they were wrong and it was a cop who did it. Phew.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/4/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
Garner wasn't threatening anyone. He had his hands in the air. It takes the cop 2 seconds to get from "we're going to arrest you" to "RESISTING ARREST! CHOKEHOLD!" There are a few cops there, it wasn't going to be that difficult to get his hands behind his back. The coroner called this a homicide (the STATES definition, Mike, not the google definition. It doesn't mean intent to murder). If someone else did this, it's a crime, and this person is probably going to jail, even though he obviously didn't mean to kill him. It's excessive, and the fact that this guy won't even go to trial on the lowest possible felony, because the DA doesn't want to **** off the NYPD, where the possible punishment could be as low as probation and at most 4 years, is amazing. That's all.

Bingo.

Again, people act like the grand jury is some sort of independent arbitrator of the facts. In reality, the grand jury is a tool of the prosecutor, used to get whatever result he wants.

"The grand jury is a tool of the prosecutor, used to get whatever result he wants"

I'm calling you out for Bullshit on this one and I despise when you say this. Its not the first time.


The prosecutor's job is to present the evidence of the case to the grand jury and work with them to decide if there is probable cause. Its not to leave out facts, witnesses, etc to manipulate the decision of the grand jury. In fact the prosecutor doesn't even need a grand jury - they can still proceed with an indictment even if the grand jury decides there is no probable cause.


http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

Yeah, you're ignoring reality, moy.

Posted by moy23 on 12/4/2014 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/4/2014 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, you're ignoring reality, moy.

Reality is a prosecutor doesn't even need a grand jury if they think they have a strong case.

Correct. The prosecutor also has political issues to deal with. He can use the grand jury as a shield.