Indict a Ham sandwich but not a cop
 

Ferguson decision seemed right to me this one however. Choke Holds are a no no and he is photographed choking the guy out.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo

I think both decisions were wrong and neither was surprising.

http://www.alternet.org/most-white-p...ous?page=0%2C0

I have mixed feelings about this case. When the police put anyone in any type of hold, they need to take it seriously when the person says they can't breathe. I feel like I've seen a few of these cases where the police ignored the person's pleas and the person ended up dying. In this particular case, which I don't know that much about, I think I read somewhere that the guy had a heart attack. Did anyone hear what the autopsy said? I would obviously blame the cops much more if the guy choked to death than if he had a heart attack. The reason I say that is because if this was normally a safe method of taking people down and 99.999% of people would come out of it fine, then I don't blame the police as much if this was just that one person out of 100,000 that had a heart attack from the stress of the thing.

But either way, I think the police have some responsibility. If they didn't choke the guy, he would still be alive. On the other hand, if the guy would have complied, he wouldn't have been choked. The police get criticized when they use deadly force (by shooting someone). In this case, I don't think they were trying to use deadly force but unfortunately the suspect still died.

I think the family certainly deserves some compensation. As I said before, if you're going to put someone in some type of hold, you better take it seriously if they say they can't breathe. If you don't take it seriously and they die, you certainly have some culpability. I don't know if there was any criminal intent on the officer's part. I doubt there was but I don't know if there needs to be criminal intent to charge someone with involuntary manslaughter.

Anyway, I don't know enough of the facts of the case or enough about the law to give an opinion about whether the officer should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. But as I said before, I think the family deserves money in a lawsuit simply because I think there was some negligence on the officers' part for not taking the suspect's pleas that he couldn't breathe seriously.

Why do you even read such nonsense? Some of the stuff in that article was so ridiculous that it is laughable. The funniest thing was when the author said it is bad for Obama to tell black men to be better fathers because that is being negative and it might hurt their self-esteem.

This author is the epitome of a "bleeding-heart liberal". She thinks that to hold someone accountable is a bad thing. How could that be a bad thing? It is just the opposite. If you keep making excuses for someone, you're not helping them. For example, if I have a son with a drug and alcohol problem, am I better off pretending that the problem doesn't exist, and always blaming everyone else, when he gets arrested? Of course not. The only way I am going to help my son is to admit that there is a problem. Then I would need him to admit that he has a problem and to take responsibility for it. Then at least there is a chance to make some progress. If we deny there is a problem, things will never get better.

Eric Holder is the epitome of what I'm talking about. Instead of admitting that there is a problem with crime in the inner city, he wants to blame everyone except for the people committing the crime. He wants to act like the big problem is the police. It's absurd. I'm not claiming the police are perfect. They are going to sometimes make mistakes. In addition there are some bad cops out there. We should hold police to a high standard and when there is misconduct it should not be tolerated. That being said, our main problem is not the police. Our main problem is the criminals.

I'm glad this black sheriff called out Eric Holder:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...Anything-To-Me

Typical Ruppert verbal judo.Give your opinion in a long winded dissertation and end it with a caveat that you dont know enough to give an opinion. If I could bet on how your opinion would be framed it would be a single for me in the pick 4. If a chokehold has been banned since the 90's and The cop uses a chokehold and a person dies and it is filmed well that is pretty cut and dry.

The chokehold was applied for 4-6 seconds. Hardly long enough to cause death.

Had the suspect not been combative, 200lbs overweight, and suffering from asthma he would be alive today. The cop is guilty of violating department policy and nothing else.

"Black Lives Matter Except When Killed by Other Blacks" :wf

I was not aware that the chokehold was banned. I read that the officer said this was a technique that he was trained to do at the academy. If the chokehold is illegal then I would lean towards manslaughter.

i cannot fathom how a cop who broke dept policy and killed a guy with a banned chokehold gets no indictment. it's appalling.

saw this on slate yesterday after the announcement:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...by_garner.html


glad people have their priorities in order.

garner's official cause of death--homicide
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...801-story.html

I think the first decision was right, and therefore not surprising, based upon witness 10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eded-to-shoot/

and witness 34.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ike-it-was.php

It would be tough for the grand jury to indict with testimony such as these, especially since they were supported by (and in turn supported) the physical evidence.

I haven't seen testimony or evidence in the Garner case, but the video certainly is troubling. Garner's resistance seems pretty mild, and the officer seems to maintain the hold longer than necessary considering all the support surrounding him.

the hold should never have been done at all, since it's against dept. policy.

The chokehold is banned by NYC Police department policy not by NY State Law. In retrospect the arrestee should have been tased and or maced. It was obvious he wasn't going anywhere w/o a fight and those methods would have obviously been a better choice than taking him down in a choke hold.

I found this opinion piece thought provoking.

"The Eric Garner case is a reminder that government is force, and more government equals more force."

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/04/...-police-power/

Should have stated, "The Eric Garner case is a reminder that when police tell you to put your hands behind your back, it's not the start of a debate"

imo, this case is a lot less about race, and a lot more about police using excessive force. this guy died because of a cop opting to use a banned chokehold to take down someone possibly selling 'loosies'. sounds like overzealousness to me. did he pose an imminent threat? no. was he running, resisting arrest? no. did the policeman follow procedure? no.

after years of being allowed to do as they wish, it's no surprise that cops have an overall attitude of 'we can do whatever the hell we wish, when we wish, and you all just deal with it'.

:tro::tro:

Right so let's arrest anyone for any reason and then kill anybody who resists. Good policy.

It's always funny to me how the people who would never in a billion years be even inconvenienced by the cops are the ones who rush the police's defense in every case. Myopia is a hell of a thing.

As a country we suffer from Mass lack of empathy

I can't say whether it does or does not have something to do with the former, but it definitely has something to do with the latter.