11 Facts About the Eric Garner Case the Media Won’t Tell You

garReprinted from Newsmax.com.

Sources in the mainstream media expressed outrage after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City policeman in the death of Eric Garner, but there are 11 significant facts that many of them have chosen to overlook:

1. There is no doubt that Garner was resisting an arrest for illegally selling untaxed cigarettes. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik put it succinctly: “You cannot resist arrest. If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different,” he told Newsmax. “He wouldn’t be dead today.

“Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don’t have the ability to say, ‘Well, this is a minor arrest, so we’re just going to ignore you.’”

2. The video of the July 17 incident clearly shows Garner, an African-American, swatting away the arms of a white officer seeking to take him into custody, telling him: “Don’t touch me!”

3. Garner, 43, had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny.

4. At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession and false impersonation.

5. The chokehold that Patrolman Daniel Pantaleo put on Garner was reported to have contributed to his death. But Garner, who was 6-foot-3 and weighed 350 pounds, suffered from a number of health problems, including heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. Pantaleo’s attorney and police union officials argued that Garner’s poor health was the main cause of his death.

6. Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later.

7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.

Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, said: “It was clear that the officer’s intention was to do nothing more than take Mr. Garner into custody as instructed, and that he used the takedown technique that he learned in the academy when Mr. Garner refused.”

8. The grand jury began hearing the case on Sept. 29 and did not reach a decision until Wednesday, so there is much testimony that was presented that has not been made public.

9. The 23-member grand jury included nine non-white jurors.

10. In order to find Officer Pantaleo criminally negligent, the grand jury would have had to determine that he knew there was a “substantial risk” that Garner would have died due to the takedown.

11. Less than a month after Garner’s death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice’s waistband outside a New York hotel.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Paula Douglas

    You don’t have to be a liberal or in the MSM to be outraged that Garner died because he threatened the government’s revenue stream. Don’t they have crime in New York? Or is that all squared away now, so the cops have time to spare hassling a guy for selling a legal product? The liberal outrage over Garner’s death is hypocritical, since most leftists back the kinds of nanny-state laws that seek to control behavior through punitive taxation, but anyone who opposes that totalitarian mindset should be disgusted and outraged by his death. I’m not sure why anyone would think that these 11 points are relevant to the salient fact that Garner died because the government hates competition.

    • lordhelmet

      He died because he was a fat, drug abusing slob who resisted arrest.

      • Showbiz1

        As a knuckle dragging idiot, maybe you should be a guest host for Hannity…nitwit is too good of a label for you…RACIST NITWIT fits better.

        • bob smith

          He may be cruel in his beliefs but at least he is not a progressive-bent fool such as you who makes this argument about racism and conservatives.

          You would do well to open your eyes and seek the truth in who imposed these rules that cost Mr. Garner his life. You can take a guess but I assure you, it wasn’t he nor Hannity. It was your knuckle-dragging, race-baiting progressive leftist leaders.

          You remember, the leadership you voted in.

          • claspur

            These anti-American Progs would vote for Obola again, if they could. Simply insane?

          • Showbiz1

            As you incorrectly identify me as a “progressive” you comments have no credibility. I’m at least a Reagan, Bush, Romney voter. Did you bother to turn out for all of them? If you truly are a GOP’er, did you bother to vote or are you a tea party jerk who sat out the election? Just because you like Hannity’s kind smile, doesn’t change the fact that he’s a moron who hurts the GOP more than all of his years of so called help could ever benefit us…

          • efraim mackellar

            The bigotted “conservatives” hate any conservative who doesn’t fit with their kneejerk reaction. There are plenty of them on this thread (you know who you are. guys), but, thankfully, not all the posters.

          • Showbiz1

            I can only wish, as a former contributor to this site, that David Horowitz would do something to remove the bigots who want the GOP to lose all national elections…

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            You mean the mushy middle-of-the-roaders who think we should continue to nominate Establishment-men like Bush 43, Dole, and McCain (all of whom lost the popular vote)? God forbid the Republican Party should actually stand for something like individual freedom – it might frighten away some timid souls scared to take responsibility for their own lives.

          • truebearing

            Don’t let the door hit you in the as…head on the way out.

          • lordhelmet

            At what age did you tell your mom that you were gay?

        • Sheik Yerbouti

          Such nostalgic insults!

          • Showbiz1

            Thanks Sheik!

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Funny, in your picture your helmet doesn’t look that tight, but it appears to be constricting the flow of blood to your brain. Do you really think the police should be able to kill someone just for resisting arrest (and rather mildly at that)?

    • bob smith

      You are correct, 100%,brilliant.

      Mr. Garner died because Sir Bloomberg, Sir Conrad, et al issued royal edicts to permit the Sherrif of Nottingham to do anything and everything necessary to ensure the tax revenues are not to be diminished at all costs.

      Why even to have one poor, homeless, street-thriving nave not commit his entire pocket change wealth to the purchase of an $8 pack of cigarettes and allow him to purchase loosies in his quest to manage his limited cash flow would be tantamount to disaster in depriving said Sir Michael or Sir Conrad of $6 in taxes.

      Rather than commit intellectual and material capital to the promotion of jobs through free market capitalism and edicts in favor of business, the Royal families of the left would prefer that you kneel in their presence and question nothing or they will have their attack dogs of the likes seen with Mr. Garner on you as well.

      Those murderous, law breaking illegals entering The Republic? What have you? What of it? I just learned about that from the Town Cryer. I will confer with my court jester and render an edict anew at sunrise.

    • JayWye

      Garner’s “product” was NOT legal. (he was out on bond for the last arrest for selling them,if it were legal,the judge woudl have tosses the case.)
      it’s not legal to sell loose cigarettes,the product MUST have a tax stamp on each package.

  • lordhelmet

    Libs always say that cigarettes kill. Well, in this case they were correct. That guy was a heart attack or stroke waiting to happen. He resisted arrest and was a serial criminal who should have been locked up for good long ago. F him. And especially F the left wing communist maggots shutting down traffic with their hysteria.

    • efraim mackellar

      So you think he deserved to be choked to death ? What a compassionate guy you are.

      • wildjew

        That choke hold the officer had him in when he was pleading (eleven times?) “I can’t breathe,” is something the author, Jim Meyers looks to be defending here.

        #7. Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.

        • efraim mackellar

          Yes, he is justifying the whole thing. I think some “conservatives” need to broaden their perspective a bit. This is not like the Ferguson case. Here we have video of the incident. Let the left maintain their prejudiced outlook even in the teeth of hard clear facts, conservatives can surely rise above that.

          • wildjew

            That’s what I’ve been arguing the past few days with my fellow conservatives. I don’t see that this is about race, but common human decency. Some (on both the left and the right) are blaming this on the law as though the officer couldn’t use his own good judgement. Wasn’t that the justification at Nuremberg, they were only following orders? We have a God-given brain. Like you say, this isn’t Ferguson. Conservatives need to make distinctions.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            The authors at FPM haven’t come to a conclusion on the issue of proper policing. That is a departmental issue and there is an internal review going on now. The question of criminal charges is another matter. As this author points out, he used an outdated maneuver that the department no longer recommends. That’s a managerial question. The cop had no idea of the poor health of the suspect and had no reason to believe he would be fatally harmed. Using force always involves unknown risks.

            I don’t understand the politicalization and criminalization of police procedures. Malpractice in medicine is not a criminal issue even if the patient dies (unless foul play is suspected.) If someone is doing their duty but fails to follow “acceptable standards” a civil, not a criminal, case is initiated. No doubt the family of Garner will initiate a civil case.

          • wildjew

            Something about this choke hold the cop used bothered me. Maybe that is why the department banned the use of it. Did you see his muscular arm around the man’s neck? There were the repeated pleas from Mr. Garner for air. Have you had a bully deprive you of air? I have as a child in a neighbor’s pool.

            I have no idea what the officer’s intent was. How can we know? I would not compare this necessarily to malpractice in medicine unless the patient were pleading for his or her life and the doctor refused to hear those pleas.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            A departmental ban is not a law, passed by a legislative body with penalties specified. It’s a managerial decision. I have no problems with the managerial decision and no problems with better management. The officer was doing what we asked him to do, arrest those violating the law. He wasn’t stealing for his own pocket or executing a mob hit. As his “boss” we of course want to instruct him in how to execute his job. That’s a managerial policy and it used to allow measures “we” have since decided are too risky.

            I’ve witnessed many arrests over my 60 years and almost always I’ve heard the suspect yell “you’re hurting me.” The officer knew the amount of force he was using but didn’t realize the suspect’s failed health. He may or may not have believed the suspect, who died over an hour later. It’s a judgment call and there is no evidence or even accusations that the officer set out to hurt him or believed he had hurt him.

          • efraim mackellar
          • wildjew

            “A departmental ban is not a law, passed by a legislative body with penalties specified…”

            I understand. Andrew McCarthy ended his piece with the following:

            “I don’t think race had anything to do with what happened between Eric Garner and the police. I intend to keep an open mind until we learn all the evidence the grand jury relied on. And I continue to believe the NYPD is the best police force there is. But I also know, as good cops know, that there is a difference between resisting arrest by not cooperating, as Garner was doing in Staten Island, and resisting arrest by violent assaults and threats of harm, as Michael Brown did in Ferguson. Police deserve a very wide berth in responding to the latter, but less of one with the former. I thus cannot in good conscience say there was insufficient probable cause to indict Officer Pantaleo for involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            The law in the state of NY makes negligent homicide a crime. The police here used lethal force – they caused Garner’s death through the “chokehold” and by compressing his chest. Any reasonable person (in NY the standard is any reasonable police officer) would have realized this could cause death. Was this use of lethal force justified? No, because Garner did not present the officers with the threat of death or serious bodily injury. It’s not as if he was drawing a gun from his waistband when they tackled him.

            Therefore, I conclude that negligent homicide has been committed. I will concede there is some doubt as to exactly who committed the crime, and I hope that’s why the grand jury failed to indict – otherwise, they simply didn’t do their jobs.

          • MarilynA

            One again. Garner did not die on the spot from what the police were doing. He died of a heart attack in the ambulance on his way to the hospital. there are too many people jumping to conclusions based on a video that was edited to make it look like the cops killed him on the spot. A favorite tactic of the race baiters and rabble rousers.

          • MarilynA

            When held in a choke hold a person cannot speak because a choke hold puts pressure on the larynx preventing a person from uttering sounds.

          • truebearing

            A true choke hold requires the use of both arms. I didn’t see a choke hold in the video. Also, killing someone with a choke hold takes longer than the cop had a hold on Garner. Simple logic tells us that if the choke hold killed garner, he wouldn’t have been alive when the ambulance arrived.

            Let me point out to anyone who misunderstands my point. I feel bad that Garner ended up dying and leaving children without a father, but Garner is the one most responsible for putting himself into a situation that he couldn’t physically handle. Yes, the police could have gotten off him sooner, or tried to put him into a position where he could have breathed wasier, but they didn’t commit a homicide.

          • wildjew

            OK, but then why was it ruled a…..

            “HOMICIDE: Medical examiner says NYPD chokehold killed Staten Island dad Eric Garner” ?

          • wildjew

            A civil case will not affect this officer. He is protected. It won’t bring Garner back.

          • efraim mackellar

            But he still has OberGruppenFuehrer Holder to deal with.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I am saddened that so few seem to remember that an important legal principle going back to English common law is that agents of the government must obey the law the same as ordinary citizens. If you or I caused a man’s death, we would have to have good reason for doing so or we would face criminal charges.

            The police are not above the law, my friend. To everyone who thinks what the police did to Garner was all right I suggest this simple test: if they had drawn their guns and shot him, would that be o.k. with you? Because what they did was not much better. There is a point at which negligence becomes criminal – you can argue that it shouldn’t be our law, but for now it is.

            If you can’t see the principle in this case, let’s make it more general. A police officer draws his weapon and kills a man. Are you seriously suggesting that the laws regarding homicide should not apply? That it should be a civil and/or administrative question only?

          • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

            The man was a thug and a wheezing pig whose body was shutting down on him before he even met the cops. You are delusional.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Yes, he might have died in another 15 years if the police hadn’t cut off his air supply just then. Therefore it’s nothing to get worked up over.

          • MarilynA

            The police did not “cut off his air supply.” He was having a heart attack. the police could not know of his medical conditions but since he did he should have known better than to have resisted arrest.

          • mobuyus

            He also may have died just bending over to tie his shoe-laces..There was no fifteen years left on his frame.

          • WW4

            You, s;vbkr0boc,klos;, on the other hand, are just a wheezing pig whose brain has shut down.

          • MarilynA

            Again. The police did not kill Garner. He died of a heart attack in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, according to his autopsy. All the police did was subdue him after he resisted arrest. His saying, “I can’t breathe” could have been because to the heart attack, not because of compression to his chest and neck. That’s what the Grand Jury believed and that is the reason they ruled the way they did.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Again – your account is self-contradictory. How could the autopsy findings be different from the conclusions of the ME who performed the autopsy in the first place? I don’t know where this heart attack rumor got started, but that is not what the ME listed as the cause of death.

          • truebearing

            He was pulled to the ground in a matter of 4 or 5 seconds. You can’t choke someone to death in that amount of time.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            No one claims they did. The claim is that the police, through the totality of their actions, caused compressions of Garner’s neck and chest which ultimately killed him. That’s still homicide unless you have contrary medical evidence and not mere speculation that the man might have had a heart attack or something.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            You are completely ignoring my point. No one is saying that the police are above the law. You’re also ignoring point #7 in the article. The cop used his training.

            The point I raise–and it is original with me so I guess you can ignore it and post boiler-plate responses to others’ boiler-plate responses–is that the police should be held to the same standard of law as physicians. Both perform risky procedures that only they are licensed to do. Both take actions that you and I can’t by law but they must as part of their duty to serve.

            As I said, the standard used by physicians–the use of widely acceptable procedures considered appropriate to deal with the problem–protects physicians from criminal and civil charges if an adverse outcome results from a risky procedure. You and I can’t perform these procedures and we would be arrested immediately. But physicians are not charge with negligent homicide if their procedure fails as long as it is an acceptable treatment (even if their hospital prohibits it!)

            As the article notes (point #7) the cop used a procedure he was taught in the academy. It is an acceptable procedure in the profession. It is still use in some places. The department has decided it won’t be used in NYC. This is a managerial decision, not a law. It is still deemed acceptable in practice (see point #7) and used within the profession. It is risky; but a healthy person would not have been harmed. The cop had no way of knowing that the suspect was in such bad health. Every use of force has some risk if the suspect is unhealthy. Are you suggesting that the police not use force?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I didn’t ignore your point; I simply don’t agree. The law, even in New York, is that the police are allowed to use lethal force in exactly the same circumstances that you and I are – and that is as it should be. The idea that police badges are licenses to kill, as you seem to believe, is absolutely chilling.

            As to the rest of your post, you’re assuming facts not in evidence. We don’t know that the procedure used was taught at the academy and we most certainly don’t know that a man in better health would have survived it (it’s amazing how many amateur coroners we have out here, each one thinking he knows more than the ME who performed the autopsy).

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            We are not allowed to use force, period. I can’t cuff anyone. I can’t take people into custody. The police are licensed to use force, that’s their job. It’s you who are assuming that he choose to use lethal force or applied an illegal maneuver. The jury decided otherwise. You’re playing amateur judge and jury.

            I raise the issue of what the law should be. I ask why should it be different from other risky licensed professions like medicine? I didn’t and FPM didn’t conclude the facts in this case prove or don’t prove the case. Nor are we saying what police internal investigations should show. But we can talk about legal philosophy and the standards for criminal prosecution; and we can discuss the way we want our police departments managed. That’s the conversation I initiated but you have him hanging already.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I’m sure you mean well by bringing up the matter, but I just am not about to get sidetracked by questions of what the law should be. I’ve already made up my mind anyway. Honestly, I think you misunderstand the law as it applied to doctors, and you may not realize that in many states, including NY, the police are in fact given a wider latitude than the ordinary citizen. I have made my comments on the Garner case bearing in mind the legal standards of NY state law. Philosophically, I remain absolutely convinced that police should be held to exactly the same standards when using lethal force that the ordinary citizen is. Maybe we can argue about it some other time, but not now.

            If it makes you feel any better, the many hostile responses I’ve received suggests that many people seem to agree with you – the police can just fire away and use deadly force whenever they subjectively feel they should be able to. But I don’t want to live in such a society.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I don’t hold that the “police can just fire away and use deadly force whenever they subjectively feel” and I’m not sure why you misrepresent my views.

            You say you don’t want to debate what the law should be in the case of the police and doctors, etc. I’ll respect that. We’ll have to talk about other matters another time. Have a good day!

          • efraim mackellar

            I read that Officer Pantaleo had been disciplined for racial harassment.
            I think it was on Newsmax. That puts a different slant on things.

            Glen
            Beck, whom I generally don’t have much time for, went up in my
            estimation somewhat with the post you made referencing him above. Andrew
            McCarthy also has a good article on this on National Review, I think.

          • wildjew

            I will look for McCarthy’s piece. Thanks. If you can find the piece about the officer being disciplined, I would appreciate it. I did not think this had anything to do about race.

          • efraim mackellar
          • wildjew

            Maybe it is because of some unjustified prejudice on my part. Mr. Pantaleo looked to be thuggish in the video. I suppose one has to be a bit thuggish to be in this kind of dangerous business. I’d like to think not all police officers are thuggish.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            And it probably doesn’t. The danger is that if it’s true he was disciplined, it will give Obama and Holder a peg on which to hang a Federal case. I certainly don’t want that even though I think a state indictment was almost certainly warranted.

          • wildjew

            That is my problem. Obama and Holder injecting themselves into these things; scoring political points. That is why our side (conservatives) cannot afford to get any of these things wrong because it plays into Obama’s hands.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Yes, McCarthy’s piece is very carefully nuanced and balanced. I go slightly further than he’s willing to in that I believe there was sufficient probable cause to conclude that a crime had been committed, but he does say that the grand jury may have made a mistake.

          • truebearing

            Beck went up in your estimation because he agreed with you. That is some impressive “reasoning.”

            You read that the officer was disciplined for racial harassment, but that proves nothing. Mybe it is true, but maybe it is more political correctness gone wild.

            Your “objective standards” are a joke.

          • efraim mackellar

            You just want to rile people, troll. Be off with you. Go and harass your own leftist friends for a change.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            As I said to ephraim, it seems to be you, me, and him here at FPM, plus a few others at NRO. Too many Conservatives have taken up the refrain that the police must never be questioned or second-guessed for their actions because they have a difficult and at times dangerous job. I think we disagree and believe the police must obey the law.

            It’s ironic considering all the criticism Conservatives are rightly throwing at Obama for his failure to follow the law that they should be so quick to excuse the police for doing the same thing (without Obama’s malicious intent, of course).

          • wildjew

            Do you think it is part of a defense mechanism on the right? Because like Bernie Goldberg speculated sarcastically: “Rule #1: Don’t hold a member of your team accountable – it might give ammo to the enemy. “

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Maybe that’s it. The race hustlers and pro agitators are making all they can out of this, and coming on the heels of the Ferguson case (where the grand jury was right not to indict) everything is getting blown way out of proportion. So it may be that our colleagues are taking the other side as a defensive measure.

          • MarilynA

            The police followed the law in both the Brown and Garner case. The evidence showed Brown was rushing toward Wilson when Wilson shot him in the top of the head. Garner died of a heart attack in the ambulance on his way to a hospital, after the police subdued him when he resisted arrest. The police did not kill him as the video seems to indicate. I am not ready to throw the cops under the bus until I know all the facts.

          • msliberty

            Was the choke hold legal?

          • msliberty

            Exactly!!!

          • CowboyUp

            But their actions were questioned, and the finding was that no law was violated by the police.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Which is of course the point at issue – was the grand jury correct not to indict? I haven’t gone quite so far as to say they were, but I’m halfway there; I’m satisfied a crime was committed. I’m not so sure I could determine exactly who committed it though – this is where it would be helpful to have some of the testimony the grand jury heard – and I hope that’s the only reason they didn’t indict.

          • itaintmojo

            Like The Profound Mound Of Rebound said, if you resist arrest, that’s when problems happen.

            It does appear the officer could have handled it better, but the press hides truth that could calm down the situation. If you think conservatives are not being fair, it still beats the outright lies, ommisions, and denials by the left. They left out that a store owner called the cops to have him removed. They were responding. It all went bad when Garner resisted.

            People do not use common sense. Even a racist cop would have to think twice before inflicting their hate in this environment. There is no benifit. Wilson can never go home or be a cop again. Cops have no interest in paying that price. Who woułd?

          • wildjew

            Wait. Where did Wilson come into the discussion? Why are you comparing Wilson to this officer (Daniel Pantaleo) who put a choke hold on Mr. Garner who was pleading he could not breathe? Why compare Michael Brown who tried to wrestle Wilson’s gun from him to Eric Garner who looked to be flailing about? Did you watch, did you listen to the video?

            I am disappointed David Horowitz or Jamie Glazov posted this piece from Newsmax.com

          • itaintmojo

            I did not mean to compare. When I saw the video, even I jumped to conclusions. But I shut them down because I knew there would be pertinent details that the MSM would bury. Which ends up ruining peoples lives. I have read your comments before, all good. I’ve clicked like on most. Blacks hate whites on mass. I will not be bullied into false memes. And I know some day a change is gonna come. You are a straight arrow WJ. There is way to much disrespect going on towards some hardworking folks who work on grand juries, and in Law enforcement. We are sending these people a very bad message. It’s no incentive for them to do good. They are totally unappreciated to the point of being called corrupt. And at the expense of pawns of the Gruberment like Garner and Brown.

          • wildjew

            “Blacks hate whites on mass…”

            You are making the kind of generalization I make about Palestinians and the world of Islam. I believe Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and many of their supporters hate whites on mass. I don’t want to believe that about the African American community at large. Maybe I will be forced to do so at some point in time.

          • itaintmojo

            I speak of the majority rather than generalize. Far too many Blacks are raised to blame and therefore hate whitey. You and I pay for what racists did in the past. Interesting you bring up Palestineans. I correlate the victim hood of the two peoples. Palistinians are stuck in hate. So are Blacks. Except Blacks are not hating for some evil prophet. All Blacks need to do is to get off the Democrat plantation and forgive whitey for the past. Recognize whitey is not like he used to be. That most whities are good with them. They need to listen to Lloyd Marcus and voices like his. I am rooting for them. But for the moment they remain blind and unfair. The media is shameless. Obama is like Al Sharpton for a prez. Out of all the cruelty Obama wrought, I despise that he ruined race relations in America most of all. Destroyed any progress made for his gain. Take care WJ

          • MarilynA

            Not all whites abused blacks. Even back in slave times most whites treated their slaves almost like members of their families. I have seen old wills and records in which people attempted to see that their slaves were taken care of. One man freed his slaves and then ordered his children to see that they were taken care of. People who abused others for what ever reason are the same type people who abuse their children and animals. A lot of white people in the South looked after and took care of their black neighbors. However, during the “Civil rights campaign” a lot of myths and outright lies were circulated about the way they were treated in the South. In addition, northern agitators roamed the south telling the black people that they were getting a raw deal. One such agitator told a black family who was living rent free, and had been living there for over 30 years, in a house on the back side of my father in laws property that the owner had to make repairs and fix the place up. When the family approached my father in law and told him what they had been told he laughed and said, “I think it best if you just move out.” My father in law was not the exception. His generosity was the rule in the South.

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            MOST whites never owned any slaves in the US. It was a 1% kind of thing.

          • msliberty

            OMG! It is about OWNING A REAL PERSON AND PASSING HIM/HER ON LIKE YOUR OLD WINTER COAT.Not ALL whites were so noble. Read the other side of history, also. Ever heard of the Underground Railroad in the North?

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            Forgive who though? The entire white race? If that’s the case, their treatment of us can be nothing short of pure racism. But, somehow in the US, it has become “law” that blacks can’t even BE racists. In the US racism is totally owned by whites and whites only. That message is very very clear to everyone in the land now. I’ve been hearing it since the 60s.

            And it’s a lie. So how can I come to respect a race of people who hate my race and wish me dead because they believe a lie?

            I’m also curious why white Americans in the North tolerate this when you consider the “noble” purpose they claim for the civil war. They freed the slaves and are STILL just as hated as the southern whites. Doesn’t THAT ring a bell maybe?

            One of the biggest race problems in the US is the refusal to accept that a MAJORITY of black Americans are hard core racists.

          • itaintmojo

            Bang on everything you wrote. Perhaps forgiveness isn’t needed. Maybe just letting it go and moving on would be enough. Dwelling on the past is useless. Learning from it is productive. I have no idea if Black America will ever snap out of it. But it’s never going to occur if they keep listening to race hustlers like Barry.

          • msliberty

            Try things like “fair”, “equal justice”, you know.

          • itaintmojo

            Everyone who is nice and polite gets treated fairly by me. Live and let live! Nice people are great from every race or creed!

          • MarilynA

            I didn’t have any animosity toward any of them until they started all this rioting and looting to forced everyone to accept their right to attack cops and try to kill them and the cops are supposed to just stand there and not try to defend themselves. They must believe, like their leader, that all whites are too stupid to know what they are up to.

          • msliberty

            Ah, yes, generalizations. That from which NAZISM was born.

          • wildjew

            I don’t know if that is quite fair on your part. The Germans, Winston Churchill told readers of the Strand in 1935, constituted “the most industrious, tractable, fierce and martial race in the world.” My guess is during the war the vast majority of Americans agreed with Churchill. That looks to be a generalization. Don’t we tend to make them when we are at war? Was Churchill a Na – zi?

          • wildjew

            I don’t know if this on-line definition is the best one,

            Generalization: a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.

            With the Palestinians and much of the Muslim world, I think we are talking about more than a few specific (or isolated?) cases. For example, polls in Israel illustrate majorities, often significant majorities of Palestinians support suicide bombings when they target innocent Jews (women, children, etc.).

          • mobuyus

            Most American Blacks like the kind of people that like them.

          • MarilynA

            If Garner were being held in a choke hold he wouldn’t have been able to speak because the choke hold puts pressure on the larynx. Also, the autopsy showed no marks on Garner’s neck. If he were being held in a choke hold there would have been marks.

          • efraim mackellar

            How could there be marks if it was the cop’s forearm, not his hands, doing the choking ?

          • CowboyUp

            A forearm applied hard enough to close the trachea will leave bruises too.

          • msliberty

            “…he wouldn’t be able to speak”. Know anyone with asthma? I have it. You are wrong on all counts.

          • Steph Durant

            …. and I’ve still to hear what the better alternative to the neck-takedown should have been….

            Lots and lots and lots of talk …. absolutely no one with anything succinct and constructive on the very situation.

            Yup. Till there is, this exact same scenario will play out next week (in NYC or Chicago or Bethesda or New Orleans) …. EXCEPT we won’t even hear about that one (AT ALL) ’cause there won’t be any video on YT or TMZ for loads of people to get hysterical about.

            Someone with some intelligence please outline exactly what the LEO’s were to do instead. Otherwise stop yapping for the absolutely no good it does. I’m tired of hearing “left-wing this” and “right-wing that”.

            Jeepers.

          • wildjew

            You make a good point. How many police officers were on top of this man? He did not look to be physically resisting in the video as much as flailing about. I am not saying a “neck lock” is inappropriate but how many times did the man have to plead, “I can’t breathe,” before the officer loosened up a bit?

          • msliberty

            THIS IS ABOUT E-Q-U-A-L J-U-S-T-I-C-E. The choke hold is presumed to be illegal in NY. So which law breaker do we go after in order to make the system work for EVERYONE? — the cig seller or the choke-guy? Remember one is DEAD.

          • wildjew

            Do you think the “choke-guy” intended to kill the cig seller?

          • CowboyUp

            It’s my understanding that there is no law against police using choke holds, it’s just no longer NYPD policy to use them.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            It’s you, me, wildjew, and a few others on NRO. I think we’re in the minority, but it’s good to know we’re not entirely alone. Andy McCarthy on NRO makes a very careful case that the grand jury “may have gotten this one wrong”.

          • efraim mackellar

            Yes. Michael Savage, Beck too. I see that Garner lay on the ground motionless for quite some time with no attempt at CPR. Was no one able to administer it ?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            That’s one of the odd things you can’t determine from the tape alone. The officers didn’t try to administer CPR, and when the EMT’s arrived they didn’t do anything right away either. This is one area in which the grand jury may have heard something interesting the rest of us haven’t, although it’s hard to imagine how leaving the guy there without helping him could in any way be exculpatory.

          • truebearing

            So, is the blame now focused on the EMTs?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            There is reason to question their conduct, but they didn’t do anything criminal since they took no action (as the police did) that caused Garner’s death.

          • Steph Durant

            Finally, some insightful commentary.

            Lots of people just see the video, heard Garner died, and then don’t like EVERYTHING.

            Well, only the 23 members of Grand Jury heard/saw EVERYTHING.

            No one likes that Garner died in this. Some people don’t like that no one is going to hang for it.

          • CowboyUp

            He went into cardiac arrest on the way to the hospital. It seems he was still breathing at the scene, so there was no need for CPR. I saw at least one cop check his pulse before the EMTs got there, so apparently his heart was still beating at that time.

            The camera was shaking too bad to see it, but apparently his body did something while they were cuffing him that led the guy filming it to say several times that he had a seizure. I think it’s most likely he suffered a heart event that rendered him unconscious, but his heart soldiered on for a while before giving out on the way to the hospital.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Your theory is interesting. If I were on a petit jury at trial, and you could show a reasonable possibility that some kind of heart failure due to exertion rather than the police compressing his neck and chest was actually what caused his death, then I would acquit them. It would be as if he ran away from the police and the exertion caused him to have a heart attack.

            However, your theory is contradicted by the ME’s report, which is what I’m relying on at this stage. No doubt the ME’s report could be attacked at trial; what we are concerned with here is whether there was enough evidence to bring someone to trial in the first place. The medical evidence is critical in this case, and it may be that the grand jury was justified after all. But I have serious doubts and, as I have stated elsewhere, based on the evidence we have in hand I think someone committed negligent homicide.

          • truebearing

            Does McCarthy know Garner was selling cigarettes to children?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I don’t know. McCarthy is very careful when discussing legal matters, and since that question is irrelevant he would probably have ignored it anyway.

          • nightspore

            Then why didn’t the grand jury indict him? Or do you know something they didn’t know?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I have no evidence available to me that was not available to them. I would very much like to know why they didn’t indict anyone. And I haven’t actually come out and claimed they were wrong; I have gone this far: I believe the video and the ME’s report together are sufficient to conclude that a crime (negligent homicide) has probably been committed. I am not sure exactly who committed the crime. If I were sure as to this second question, I would say there should have been an indictment. And even then I would concede that I could easily lose the case at trial (if I were the prosecutor).

            What concerns me most of all is some of the arguments I’m hearing from fellow Conservatives. It’s a complicated question, but it seems to me most of them are o.k. with the cops just shooting people down for no reason other than the suspect resisted arrest (and no, that isn’t sufficient justification under the law).

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Haven’t you figured out that you’re wrong, yet?

            You can’t conclude that something “probably,” maybe, could have, sort of, happened, Einstein.
            You either conclude it, or you leave the question open.
            You haven’t seen all of the evidence, so you have NO evidence that anybody did anything wrong in this case.
            Only your bias and suppositions.
            Also, name a conservative who is okay with shooting those who resist arrest? Do you run a straw man business?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            You can’t conclude that something probably happened? Really, Einstein_from_Detroit? I guess you better explain that to every state legislature that implemented a grand jury system, because that is exactly what a grand jury is tasked with. When indicting, a grand jury is saying two things:
            1. A crime has probably been committed
            2. There is good reason to believe that a particular defendant(s) committed the crime – in other words, that he is probably guilty.

            No, I don’t run a straw man business, but many who have disagreed with me on this issue apparently do – read all the commentary here and on NRO. Those of us who have raised objections – and that’s all we have done, for as you note even I haven’t claimed that the police are definitely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – are accused of denying the police any authority to make arrests, of being unable to assess the situation because we’re not law enforcement, etc. etc. and in very bitter terms.

            You’re no different – what’s your excuse for being so abusive toward me? I’ve raised a perfectly legitimate argument – you don’t have to agree, but there’s really no excuse for the rudeness I and my fellows have been treated to.

          • MarilynA

            But the video didn’t show his death. All it showed was the officers trying to subdue him. He didn’t die on the sport. Apparently the officers called an ambulance because it was stated he died in the ambulance of a heart attack.

          • CowboyUp

            I don’t see the police doing anything wrong in the video. They were neither abusive nor brutal, and I see no way they could have done their duty with less force or risk of injury to him. The hard clear fact is that Garner is at fault for his own death.

          • efraim mackellar

            We must agree to disagree.

          • WW4

            I don’t know that that is a “fact,” much less a clear one. Had the police not taken him down in that fashion, he would likely still be alive. That doesn’t mean I think the officers should “hang” (in the parlance of some) but I do think an indictment would have been appropriate. There should be a good reason cops use a certain level of force, and I do not see that reason on that video.

            In the case of Ferguson, I respect and agree with that grand jury’s decision, but I can also say that poor policing played a role. Officer put himself into a situation he should not have–should have created some distance.

        • Steph Durant

          … and like everyone else, no alternative is proposed …. pretty useless discussion. No “instead of a neck-takedown, the LEO’s should have _________________ ”

          What?: (a) just walked away and said “have a nice day; we’ll leave you alone like you said”; (b) kicked him repeatedly in the nuts until Garner was on teh ground with his two hands together covering said nuts, making it easy to ‘cuff him; (c) pulled their pistol and shot him in the leg; (d) called their mommy and asked her what to do?

          What?!? You lot don’t have anything useful to say. Nothing as to what the proper alternative(s) were.

          Just “not that” because he ended up dying of a heart attack.

          Useless.

          • wildjew

            Just “not that” because he ended up dying of a heart attack……

            “The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner’s positioning on the ground while being restrained by police during the July 17 stop on Staten Island, caused his death.”

            NEWS > LOCAL
            Medical Examiner Rules Eric Garner’s Death a Homicide, Says He Was Killed By Chokehold

      • claspur

        He didn’t choke to death.
        He died of heart complications at the hospital.
        Read the article again.

        • efraim mackellar

          Irrelevant to my point about him crying, “I can’t breathe!”. Do you think it helped his condition ? No, and probably led to his death. As far as I know a person who is having a heart attack needs oxygen.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            Mr. Garner was not “choked to death.” He was taken to the ground as quickly as possible once he became agitated and announced that he would not allow himself to be arrested.

            The intent was not to harm Mr. Garner; his death was precipitated by the incident, but no officer present could have known that Mr. Garner was already critically ill before they approached him.

            Had Mr.Garner not resisted arrest, he would be alive today.

            Now, it is obvious that like many others, you yourself have never been confronted with the task of trying to neutralize and take into custody – even protective custody, an agitated person. It can become very dangerous very quickly for the officer, who risks serious injury in every encounter of this sort – and every police officer knows it..

            Having said that, I do believe this arrest was mishandled.

            The presence of an older and more seasoned supervisor at the scene might have served to diffuse the situation and calm Mr. Garner – before things got out of hand.

            Unfortunately, the supervisor, a black female sergeant who was present, evidently did not play such a role.

            Not incidentally, Officer Pantaleo has three-hundred arrests on his record, almost all of them without incident.

            Yes, Mr. Garner’s death was a terrible tragedy, and probably a preventable one. I make no effort to diminish that.

            But the officers in this case, and police officers generally, do not deserve the abuse that is being directed against them – particularly by armchair quarterbacks who know nothing about police work.

          • efraim mackellar

            Perhaps the police training manual says that if a guy is having his throat severely compressed, and gasping, cries out, “I can’t breathe!”, he has to be assumed to be bluffing. If that’s the case, God help us. Evidently officer Pantaleo has a record of disciplinary proceedings against him for racial harassment.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            “Had Mr.Garner not resisted arrest, he would be alive today.”

            He would also be alive today if the police had not chosen to use lethal force against him. Kindly remember that the police are only supposed to use reasonable force to effect an arrest, even if the suspect is resisting. Lethal force is never justified to make an arrest but may only be used in self-defense.

          • truebearing

            That wasn’t even close to lethal force. A simple wrestling match would have killed someone with his lousy health. That is his fault, not the cops.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I think you haven’t seen the ME’s report. It says that the cause of death was the pressure on Garner’s neck and chest, not his physical condition (which was listed only as a contributing factor). This is not like the police chasing a man who then had a heart attack. So no, a “simple wrestling match” would not have killed this man. The police caused Garner’s death with the use of tactics that were sloppy, dangerous, or outlawed by the department – or all three. That is their fault, and I find their negligence culpable by the standards of NY state law, at least to the extent that they are probably guilty. In other words, an indictment should have been returned unless the grand jury was unable to determine which officers were actually at fault.

          • truebearing

            You assume the medical examiner was A) competent; B) not politically corrupted. I wouldn’t assume either one, especially assumption B. Not in De Blasio world.

            I know how to put someone in a choke hold. That wasn’t a choke hold. He was speaking, therefore breathing.

            You have apparently never been a wrestler. I have, and I can tell you that it is exhausting. For a big man like Garner, who is an asthmatic, diabetic, and had a weak heart, caused by the previous conditions, plus sleep apnea — a well known cause of heart attacks — wrestling could easily trigger an asthma and/or heart attack. His windpipe wasn’t crushed, at least from everything I have read, so the fat constricting his lungs and heart, combined with the weight of the officers, combined with the physical exertion and the adrenalin, combined to cause a heart attack once in the ambulance.

            If you’re going to blame one officer, you have to blame them all, but they weren’t the ones committing illegal acts or resisting arrest. Yes, the incident was unfortunate and someone dying over selling cigarettes is absurd, but everything has a consequence, and Garner lived his life in a way where the consequences stacked up at the same time.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Absent any evidence that the ME was either mistaken or actually corrupted to the point he knowingly filed a false autopsy report, I and other reasonable people will accept that report at face value. That means the ME’s opinion that the police caused Garner’s death should be accorded more weight than your theory that he died of a heart attack.

          • truebearing

            Beyond incompetence and corruption, the ME didn’t know the definition of a choke hold. If Garner was talking during his takedown, he wasn’t being choked. he was feeling the compressionmof his upper body fat on his heart and lungs.

            Garner had sleep apnea, which is common with people who have excessive upper body fat. It is also is consistent with heart problems and asthma. Garner’s physical condition was the reason he had a heart attack. A person without his health problems would have been fine.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            If you can find an independent pathologist who, after doing his own autopsy, agrees with you that the cause of death was a heart attack, then I will concede no indictment should have been returned and the grand jury was right. But as long as you insist on playing coroner, I’ll have to be guided by the expert opinion of the ME, unless you can impeach him more effectively than you have so far.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            Again, no one “chose to use lethal force” against the suspect.

            Since you are, obviously:

            a) not a person who was actually present at the arrest
            b) not privy to the evidence presented at the grand jury
            c) completely without experience in effecting an arrest of an agitated suspect….

            I find it disconcerting that you and others like you feel entitled to express your views with such certainty.

            This was a serious human tragedy, and opinionated chest-thumping, quite frankly, is simply adolescent.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            One of the weakest, shabbiest excuses for an argument in favor of these officers that I have heard is “You’re not a police officer, therefore you have no right to judge”. By such a standard, we citizens would have no control over our own police departments. I will remind you as I have had to remind others that the police work for us, not the other way around. We set the rules for them in the form of departmental regulations and state laws which they must obey.

            All of us, police and non-police alike need to expect to be judged by our peers if it looks like we have broken the law. I don’t need to be a police officer to know that cutting off a man’s air supply, which is what they did one way or another, is a dangerous business. Any sensible person would know that you take that risk with a hold across the front of the neck, and police are supposed to be trained to understand you don’t leave a suspect lying prone for too long – you get him up in a seated or standing position.

            Therefore, these officers were negligent and their use of force excessive. And yes, I will express my views when I have excellent evidence available to me such as the video of the event and the ME’s report – sorry if you’d prefer we all bury our heads in the sand.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            If you had considered my remarks carefully, rather than responding with your customary hyperbole, you would have noted that I suggested three criteria that would lend credence to one’s judgement of these events – none of which you yourself satisfy.

            As for the “rules” you assert the “citizens” enact that constitute legal and departmental guidelines – these are enacted in conjunction with procedures derived from actual experience in police work.

            I realize how tiring it must be for a person as grandiose as yourself to have to “remind you as I have had to remind others that the police work for us, not the other way around.” Glad you cleared that up!

            As it happens, I too believe that the officers were remiss in this case – an opinion I’ve expressed in earlier remarks.

            What I have objected to is the lack of a sense of proportionality in the criticism of the police, which I think is indisputable.

          • truebearing

            They didn’t use lethal force and it is beginning to annoy me that you insist they did when you clearly don’t know the definition of “lethal force.” Pulling a person backward with an arm around the neck is not a choke hold or lethal. The “lethal force” was garner’s obesity and other health conditions.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            The ME concluded that the actions of the police which resulted in Garner’s neck and chest being compressed are what caused his death. You have not convinced me that the ME was wrong and you are right. Therefore, the actions of the police would indeed constitute “lethal force” if it could be reasonably foreseen that they might have the consequence they actually did – death. I say a reasonable man, and even a reasonable police officer, would know that if you compress a man’s neck and chest, and keep him prone after handcuffing him, that death could result (positional asphyxia is something the officers either knew about or should have known about).

          • JayWye

            police used no “lethal force” against Garner.
            a neck takedown is not “lethal force”.
            (it was NOT a “chokehold”,and it was not applied long enough to kill a normal,healthy person.)

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Here we reach a point of some difficulty, which I will be the first to concede. What caused Garner’s death? With no other evidence available, I must be guided by the coroner’s report which concluded the pressure to Garner’s neck (the “chokehold” which I have scrupulously avoided calling by the name) and chest. The ME did not say that a normal, healthy person would not have died – that is pure supposition which you and others keep making.

            So the question is, was the hold plus whatever the officers did to cause chest compression (presumably their weight and keeping Garner in a prone position while handcuffed) lethal force? To qualify, it would have to be force which a reasonable man would conclude could cause death or serious bodily injury. Based on the training we may suppose the police had (positional asphyxia is a known hazard of keeping a suspect prone), my answer to that question is “yes”. And wouldn’t a reasonable police officer at least consider the possibility that Garner was telling the truth when he claimed he couldn’t breathe?

            So again, the police used lethal force, and without justification. The only real question regarding whether indictment was justified to me is whether any one officer can be held responsible. This I do not know.

          • truebearing

            He died of complications from existing medical conditions that the police knew nothing about. He had asthma, sleep apnea, diabetes, and a weak heart. Presumably, he smoke cigarettes and pot — assumption based on his criminal record. What the h*ll was he doing selling cigarettes when he had those health issues and had been busted for the same thing previously? If he insisted on selling cigarettes illegally, why didn’t he just accept being arrested without a tussle?

            Garner killed himself, both by letting himself get so fat, having poor health habits, and by failing to peacefully accept the inevitable arrest that comes from violating the rules of the leftist police state.

          • truebearing

            He wasn’t having a heart attack from a choke hold because he never was given one.

            Maybe you should learn what “choke hold” means before blathering all over the internet.

        • maritimer_is_back_again

          Read the statement from the medical examiner.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          Read the ME’s report: “compression of his neck (chokehold), compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police” was the cause of death, with Garner’s physical condition listed only as a contributing factor.

          • truebearing

            I’ve read the report and apparently you haven’t. The medical examiner doesn’t know what a choke hold is, and neither do you. What is disturbing is that neither of you are interested in learning simple definitions because they may refute your emotional conclusions.

            Garner couldn’t have died from a choke hold since he was alive when the ambulance got their. Refute that.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I never claimed that Garner died from a “choke hold” because I refuse to be diverted by red herrings. We can argue all day about what constitutes a “choke hold” but I can reach a fair conclusion without going down that path. One more time: death resulted from the compression of Garner’s neck and chest. It could have been positional asphyxia from leaving him prone after he was handcuffed (a danger the officers should have been aware of). I’m going to accept the medical opinion of the ME as being more valid than yours. Either way, the actions of the police are what caused Garner’s death. I’m not budging from that unless you’ve got some new evidence the rest of us haven’t.

      • DavidBastable

        He wasn’t choked to death. He died in the ambulance. The autopsy showed that he was not choked but had complications from severe diabetes, etc.

        • efraim mackellar

          The city’s medical examiner has said Garner’s death was caused by
          compressing his neck and chest, with his asthma and obesity
          contributing.

          • MarilynA

            Medical Examiner was wrong. Autopsy said he died of a heart attack. And he didn’t have any marks on his neck indicating he was choked.

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            It doesn’t matter. The ME’s analysis, even though incorrect, fits the narrative, so it’s more readily believed. THIS is how it works now. Nobody gives a crap about a loser selling loosies until a white cop stops him from making “a living” or arrests him. In this case, the cherry on top was the man dying while in custody. It doesn’t matter that he could have avoided this by simply taking his pinch like a man. Instead, he acted like a petulant child with a multipage rap sheet.

          • a1781054

            He was a petulant child (mentally) with a multipage rap sheet.

          • Algeiban

            And something in that sentence demonstrates that he deserved to die?

          • bacchys

            The ME’s report is based on the autopsy. The autopsy hasn’t been released: just snippets that have been quoted in the news.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          The cause of death was compression of his neck and chest. He did not die of a heart attack or other natural causes. The police caused his death and the ME ruled the death a homicide.

          • MarilynA

            But his autopsy showed he died of a heart attack, so the spokesperson who reported the grand jury’s ruling said. The ME guessed at the cause of death. the Autopsy proved it wasn’t from compression on his neck and chest but a heart attack. In addition, that spokesperson also said there were no marks on Garner’s neck and that was the main reason they decided not to indict the cop.

          • Connie Daniels

            did you read the story>>he died an hour later from a heart attack

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Actually, the story doesn’t say that; it says that Garner died of cardiac arrest. And I’m not particularly interested in what Myers might speculate was the cause of death; the ME concluded as I have stated that compression of the neck and chest was the caused of death, which he then ruled a homicide.

            The ME’s report might very well be questioned at trial; indeed, perhaps the jurors had some pointed questions for him in the grand jury room. But the ME’s report is what I’m relying on since it’s the best evidence available to me. Also, as a point of law, Garner’s declaration that he couldn’t breathe would be admissible evidence to prove the cause of his death – it’s an exception to the hearsay rule.

          • JayWye

            DUH,cardiac arrest IS a heart attack.

            If Garner “couldn’t breathe”,he would not be able to SPEAK “I can’t breathe”. heart attacks often feel like your chest is being restricted.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Jay, I don’t like disagreeing with you as it doesn’t happen all that often. But while I’m not a cardiologist, I did not think the terms “heart attack” and “cardiac arrest” were synonymous when I wrote that – and I was right. To aid you in your medical education, I refer you to this article by the American Heart Association which explains the difference.

            It’s also not true that a patient, who is having serious trouble breathing, cannot speak phrases like “I can’t breathe”. I leave you to research this one by yourself.

            And why the abuse? Nothing I’ve said about the Garner case – and this is all first-draft material – justifies a “duh” from you or anyone else. I don’t like it when we Conservatives disagree, but let’s at least not act like Lefties, can we?

          • mybuddyrobin

            I agree with list specific post till you go into petty American left v. right petty stupidity.

            I am far left of American amoral unethical politics or societal (un)fairness…but I sure do believe in facts…not heresay..and true Justice** for everyone. Has nothing to do with American’s all conservative slant red and blue stupid petty games.

            **see capital…philosophical, meaning the essence of the word -(sorry if you
            knew that…few Americans have been taught Philosophy or Ethics, so I don’t assume)

          • RCQ_92130

            You are pretty deep into whatever drugs you happen to have taken a shining for, huh?

            What happened? Infant Dropped On Head Syndrome (IDOHS)? Pity, that. Mommy must be pretty distressed she went through all 9 months of labor just to end up with …. “that”!

          • bacchys

            That’s not correct. Someone who isn’t getting enough air- such as when being suffocated by a compression of the chest- is certainly able to speak even as they are being starved of oxygen.

          • Fred Flint

            I believe he said he couldn’t breathe in an attempt to get the officer to loosen his grip and enable him to gain an advantage in his efforts to resist.

          • falling321

            Homicide does not necessarily mean murder. On a ME report it merely means that the coroner felt there were outside influences in the death. In this case, it was the trauma and excitement of the arrest that led to his heart attack. Any medical personnel understands that if someone is saying, ‘I cannot breathe’, they are by definition able to breathe! I’m sure Garner was extremely uncomfortable and probably short of breath, but he was not choked to death.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            I’m well aware that homicide doesn’t mean murder and nowhere have I suggested that anyone is guilty of murder. All I have said is that based on the evidence we have, a crime has probably been committed. I would say that crime was negligent homicide.

            I will readily concede the medical evidence in this case is complicated, and that at trial it might not be enough to convict anyone. I will even concede that the grand jury may have heard some testimony that made it impossible for them to assign the blame for Garner’s death to any one person or any group of persons. But I am not convinced by all the armchair coroners here who, not even having performed an autopsy, are concluding that Garner died of a heart attack in the ambulance when the ME who performed the autopsy thinks otherwise.

            “Homicide” means one or more persons caused Garner’s death. It does not mean, and I do not claim, that he was “choked” to death. But the hold, however we describe it, plus other factors such as leaving the man handcuffed face down, are what caused his death – at least according to the ME. Too many here seem to want to evade that fact.

          • jzsnake

            He died because he resisted arrest. No matter your skin color a stupid idea.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            An even stupider idea is to allow the police to use lethal force any time a suspect offers the slightest resistance to arrest.

      • dwok

        That choke hold did not kill him. Please go back and watch the video. The officer had him in that hold for less than 10 seconds and all of the times that Garner said “I can’t breathe”, he didn’t have a hand on his neck.

        Resist arrest and bad things happen…..problem is with his prior’s, I guess we can surmise that the “gentle giant narrative” fails in application once again.

        • efraim mackellar

          “The city’s medical examiner has said Garner’s death was caused by
          compressing his neck and chest, with his asthma and obesity
          contributing.”

          • truebearing

            The officer didn’t compress his neck enough to stop him from breathing. That is plainly evident, since he was able to say “I can’t breathe” repeatedly. The compression of the chest was caused in part by his weight, and his asthma and heart condition ultimately caused his death.

            Are you suggesting every person breaking the law get an on-the-spot- physical before police determine the best way to take them into custody?

            Why aren’t you complaining about the Left’s cigarrette tax and decision to make the police function as tax collectors? That policy killed Garner at least as much as the inevitable arrest that resulted from that policy.

          • Bill the eighth

            I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. I DO complain about just about everything the lefty hypocrites do. I oppose the ridiculous taxes, I oppose the police being revenuers. I am disgusted that the police put more emphasis on stealing money form working people than fighting crime.

          • MarilynA

            But the autopsy said he died of a heart attack. And there were no marks on his neck.

          • efraim mackellar

            Yes, he died of a heart attack. When someone suffers a heart attack they need air, or oxygen, apparently. All this nonsense from mad posters on this thread about him being able to speak therefore he COULD breathe, doesn’t refute the fact that he was finding his breathing too restricted. It exacerbated his condition and caused his heart attack. Also, it doesn’t contradict the ME’s conclusion. As for marks on his neck, well, he was being choked by the guys forearm, NOT his hands, so,no, that wouldn’t leave a mark. Also, it was a deliberate and clear CHOKE-hold. That would compress his wind pipe, restricting his breathing.

          • truebearing

            Face reality, nit-wit. He died because of his poor health. His restricted breathing was because he had asthma.

            Cigarettes exacerbate asthma and heart conditions. So does pot. He also suffered from sleep apnea, which can cause heart problems, including heart attacks.

            He wasn’t “choked” long enough to cause a heart attack in a reasonably healthy man because he wasn’t choked at all. If a choke hold had been used, he would have died before the ambulance got their. I am willing to to give you a real choke hold to prove the point. You won’t last more than 90 seconds.

            You don’t know what a choke hold is. You’re a leftist troll trying to awfulize an unfortunate situation.

          • efraim mackellar

            Even the cop doing the hold admitted he heard the guy saying he couldn’t breathe, and stated that because he felt the guy was in danger, he loosened his grip on Garner’s throat, only to resume by pressing his head into the sidewalk. Also, the grand jury failed to make it a crime only because they could not pick out any single person being responsible, but admitted the compression by several cops was culpable in the cause of his decease. Also, the ME stated that the compression was a factor contributing to his death.

            Also, the guy had hypertension, and stress can cause blood pressure to increase, never mind the lack of oxygen.

            But, of course, you know more than all the witnesses and experts. You’re such a genius.

            You have no idea what a choke hold is. You are quite simply a narrow minded and unfeeling reactionary who knows nothing but knee jerk reactions. You are afraid to think for yourself. You try to masquerade as a conservative. You are nothing of the kind, simply a hater.

          • Steph Durant

            How’s the LEO to know the “failing-to-comply” citizen’s entire health history!??!

            The one that knew was Garner. Don’t you think he should have thought to himself “I better comply or I may die of a heart attack after the take-down because I don’t know everything the doctor talks about but I know my health is not too good.”

            It’s not the LEO’s job to look after the citizens’ health. It’s the LEO’s job to enforce the law.

          • efraim mackellar

            How was Garner to know he would be manhandled as if he been apprehended in a shoot-out ? Just leave it out, will you. If they had eased off of the guy when he cried, “I can’t breathe, then, maybe Garner would have survived.

          • mobuyus

            Hey imbecile if cops were to “ease off” during takedowns every time one of your criminal buddies said he couldn’t breathe there would be a lot of dead cops.If you’re ever receiving a beating you should call a thug and not the cops.The likes of you do not deserve societies protection.

          • efraim mackellar

            Thank you for the polite well-reasoned response.

          • JayWye

            He was taken by the wrist to be cuffed and “swatted away the officers arms”.
            that’s “resisting”. After that,it was all his fault.

          • Algeiban

            It’s the LEO’s job to be responsible if actions he doesn’t anticipate causing a fatal reaction do because of something about the suspect’s condition that he doesn’t know…that is a legal principle known as the “eggshell skull rule” or “you take your plaintiff/victim/suspect as you find them.”

          • Bill the eighth

            So, those of us who are having a problem with the militarization of the police, the unprecedented rise in police brutality, the over use and abuse of so-called “SWAT” teams ( who are nothing more than immature children playing army) and the deaths of thousands of pets and hundreds of innocents are now considered “leftist trolls”? My, what good little boot lickers you are! I would suggest all of you making feeble attempts at defending the indefensible put down your right wing republican kool aid and start taking a look around. Clearly the Eric Garner situation could have and should have been handled differently. However, there are hundreds of more cases where the police injured, maimed and/or killed totally innocent people with absolutely NO repercussions for them or their departments. Of course, the taxpayers were not so lucky.

            You should also ask yourselves; If I did the very same thing to Eric Garner, where would I find myself right now?

            All of you valiant defenders of the parasitic class should remember; that while you have no problem with the police killing inner city blacks, you will not be very happy when those same police are turned against you.

          • Steph Durant

            Garner’s refusal to comply with a LEO’s order is the set-off of things causing other things.

            Comply with the LEO’s order.

            Or move to some other country where you don’t have to concern yourself with LEO’s ordering you to do something. There’s a few of those countries left. I don’t think they care about selling illegal anything in those countries either — perfect place.

          • Bill the eighth

            Is there any situation you can think of where you wouldn’t submit? Or do you just fall to your knees every time an authority figure commands you to do something? For example, would you walk over to a ditch, kneel down and allow yourself to be shot in the back of the head because you “broke the law”?

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            He died because he chose to fight with the cops instead of taking an arrest like a man and admitting his fault. Turning THAT into a “cause” is sheer insanity. But please, keep it up. America needs to see where the thinking is going these days.

          • efraim mackellar

            So you thought the guy was “fighting” ? Right, now we know what hyperbole really is. Incredible. You’ll be telling us that chokehold was photo-shopped next.

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            Are you suggesting that resisting arrest is dancing? See, anyone can ask a stupid question. Make some sense already.

          • efraim mackellar

            You sir are trying to score points over the awful death of someone. If you were having your throat, chest and head compressed by powerfully built police officers you might start to show some empathy, but no. It’s all so trivial isn’t it ?

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            Oh no, I’m not. But it’s pretty clear who is. What “points” do I have to gain from this? My message is simple, do what the cops say and fight about it in court, NOT on the street. He’s dead because he chose to go on the offensive instead of doing what he was told. ANY physical encounter can escalate. So why risk it?

            And after more than 30 arrests, I sure don’t feel any great loss for this guy. I do not feel that society has lost a pivotal contributor. So what am I supposed to feel for him? I think he was stupid and willing to die for his stupidity. And I think it has become a cultural failing in black America.

            Rules are for everyone else it seems.

          • nightspore

            I’d say you’re the one trying to score points. And it also sounds like you want to see the cop taken down just to satisfy your own picayune blood-lust. Or should I say lust for “social justice”?

          • efraim mackellar

            Another insane comment.

          • http://www.amren.com/ Berserker

            The choke hold primarily shuts down blood to the brain via the carotid artery, which causes loss of consciousness. It is risky and can sometimes cause serious consequences.

          • Steph Durant

            … and apparently he was wrong.

            It didn’t make sense to me that someone could be asphyxiated in 10 seconds, all the while talking (saying, “I can’t breathe.”

            Is this ME any good? Any agenda of his own?

            There can still be questions about whether that take-down was necessary? Are there better ways?

            However, this incident is mostly unfortunate, and spawned from the outset by a citizen refusing to comply with a LEO’s order.

            If people don’t want police to enforce the law, then we can not bother having police.

            Of course, 2 weeks later those same people will want all the police back enforcing the law — because their house will have been looted, their daughter raped, their precious car stolen, their investments stolen, and their head beat about with a baseball bat.

        • tickletik

          Maybe we shouldn’t pass so many damn laws for which one can get arrested for. Just a thought.

      • laura r

        it was ovious by lookin @ him & him saying “i cant breath” that he had serious health issues. because of the chokehold & stress he died of a heart attack. i think the PD had bigger fish to fry than arrest him. just ask him to move else where. thats what they usually do.

      • truebearing

        He wasn’t choked to death. He died from a combination of obesity and the effects of sleep apnea, diabetes, and asthma. A choke hold won’t let you say you can’t breathe.

        Some people have suggested that supposedly les violent methods should have been used to take him into custody. What exactly would those methods be? Pepper spray to an asthmastic with a heart problem could also be fatal, as could a taser.

        There is always the option of letting him break the law with impunity, which is what the Left pretends they would do, but this whole thing is the result of the Left imposing ridiculous taxes on cigarrettes and then tasking the poice with becoming tax collectors. Put the blame where it belongs…on the Left for its parasitic policies and on Garner for repeatedly violating the laws of man and nature. No one forced him to become so fat, and anyone with asthma out to know better than to have anything to do with cigarrettes.

        Also, just wait until the Left imposes a police state. In the 20th Century they murdered over 100,000,000 of the citizens living in their “utopias.”

        • Sheik Yerbouti

          “His stupidity got him killed.” Bingo!!!

          Why debate the conditions of a fight with cops? Everyone knows a fight can get out of hand. Which is why most of us avoid them. Particularly with armed people.

          These protests lately are pushing an agenda, but the examples are lies. This can’t be sustained in reality. It’s good to see this in the open though.

          It’s good for the world to see how twisted black racism really is.

      • CowboyUp

        Deserved has nothing to do with it, and I’ll save my compassion for the officer whose life was made difficult by some jerk resisting arrest.

        • efraim mackellar

          You’ll save your compassion ? What compassion ? You obviously haven’t a clue what compassion is.

      • lordhelmet

        He died from his lifestyle, dummy.

        • efraim mackellar

          No he didn’t. He died from police heavy handed-ness. Clearly I am not a dummy. Sad that you must insult people.

      • JayWye

        it was NOT a “chokehold”,it was a neck takedown. the arm never goes across his throat. Garner was never choked. He was able to speak that he “could not breathe””,he could not do that if he actually couldn’t breathe.
        it’s common for arrestees to claim they “can’t breathe” or “you’re hurting me” to get police to let up on them so they can break free.

        • efraim mackellar

          I saw the video and the frozen frame. Clearly the arm was across his throat. Perhaps you have poor eyesight. Also he cried out when the grip was released briefly.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      Hey look at it in a positive light. Those amazing police officers are raking in buckets of cash in overtime for Christmas. They are also bolstering there pensions so they can get out of those rat infested neighborhoods in 20 years rather than risking their lives for 30 years. God bless them.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      May I suggest that death is a rather severe penalty for the “crime” of selling untaxed cigarettes?

      • truebearing

        Put that on the Left. They imposed the draconian tax that led to selling cigarettes individually, and they tasked the police with enforcing the ridiculous tax.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          Granted – the ultimate responsibility for this man’s death is on the Left. Unfortunately, our law targets those with the proximate, not the ultimate, responsibility, and that means only the officers can be charge with negligent homicide.

          • truebearing

            If Garner had been in reasonably good health, he would not have died. You can’t assign fault to police officers who don’t know his condition. he should have realized he wasn’t in in any shape to be fighting multiple cops. Where is personal responsibility in all of this?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            “If Garner had been in reasonably good health, he would not have died.” You seem given to medical speculations. Of course you have no way of knowing that. You or I might have died just as he did if the police were to do the same thing to us.

            As for personal responsibility, that’s exactly what I’m looking for: who is going to be held accountable for causing this man’s death without justification?

          • truebearing

            You are assuming someone caused the death. You are the one given to medical speculations. The grand jury doesn’t agree, and neither does the evidence. You keep ignoring the FACT that he wasn’t subjected to a “choke hold.” His heart attack came well after the takedown.

    • Mickey “the wrench”

      One day you’ll be sitting in your house, puffing a cigar, sipping a Bourbon on the rocks, reading a gun magazine … in comes the SWAT team, snatches the cigar from your teeth, slaps the drink out of your hand, confiscates the illegal magazine (which has more than 15 pages) then hauls you off to jail. This is the third time you have been caught smoking a cigar and being overweight, which would make you a serial criminal. And you don’t think it’s coming to that?

  • efraim mackellar

    This kind of “conservative” self righteousness sickens me. Too many so called conservatives are just bigots when you get right down to it. The guy was a known criminal. So what ? That didn’t justify killing him. The idiot policeman ignored Garner’s cry of “I can’t breathe ! “. That was just brutal. All this stuff about his asthma is irrelevant. THE GUY COULDN’T BREATHE SO LOOSEN THE GRIP!”. What does the fact that the guy who shot the video of the take-down was indicted on weapons charges have to do with this issue ? He has been indicted, not convicted, so it could have been a set up. Also, I don’t see any reference to the fact that Officer Pantaleo had a record of racial harassment.

    • sundance69

      Maybe from now on the officers can fill out a medical histories on the perpetrators before they make the arrest. That should work well. The average person can hold his breath for 30 to 40 seconds with no problem.
      Had they filled out the forms this would have never happened. It must be a lot of fun being a police officer nowadays…………….

      • efraim mackellar

        No, all the officers need to do is get the wax out their ears. A man was lying on the ground crying, “I can’t breathe!” No medical forms are needed here, ok ? Just two ears. By the stupid sarcastic tone of your comment it sounds as if you’d have ignored his cries. People like you are a liability.

        • sundance69

          Hands up, you got me…….. Something like the “these hand cuffs are to tight” I suppose? That’s a well known phrase also.

          • efraim mackellar

            You are obviously beyond reason. You have issues.

          • sundance69

            He was obviously a fine upstanding citizen that had only been arrested 30 times before. Is that the new average nowadays? Is wasn’t like he was beating him to death with a night stick.

          • efraim mackellar

            So he deserved to be choked to death by a cop who had been disciplined before for racial harassment ? Gotcha. Yep, you really are one highly intelligent (and compassionate!) guy.

          • sundance69

            First off he did not deserve to die, let’s get that straight and in today’s world you could be called a racist for drinking coffee with your left hand. The facts are
            he was an overweight, out-of-shape slob that weighed 350lbs. It’s not like the guy was an easy take-down, there were 4-officers trying to subdue him. And by the way thanks for the compliment…….

          • efraim mackellar

            Oh, there’s a glimmer of hope for you. Keep it up.

          • claspur

            Shucks… reading now…you beat me too that analogy. *sigh

          • efraim mackellar

            Yes, he beat you to it. Wow. Just two guys joking about a guy needlessly dying. Keep it up, “conservatives”.

        • claspur

          Yeah, whatever… the next thing the cops would be hearing is that his cuffs are too tight.
          De-libtard yourself a bit, and try thinking more
          rationally, okay?

          • efraim mackellar

            Oh, another ad hom “conservative”. Seen your unreasonable type a hundred times. It’s ugly to see. Really ugly.

    • bob smith

      I believe your search for an enemy in “conservatives” vs your progressive whatever leaves your integrity as represented by your argument in doubt.

      Notwithstanding your overt bias and dislike, not to mention your quest for a single, n a z I – like, party state, this unfortunate death of mr. Garner has everything to do with right vs wrong and in my humble opinion, as a staunch conservative is that the officer and his colleagues were wrong in their actions and furthermore that the offending Panatelo was culpable for criminal negligence. Why? A person in custody exhibiting and alleging signs of distress deserves the benefit of the doubt by the officers imposing that stress to seek to alleviate the potential for permanent physical harm. Eleven statements of not being able to breath should be warning enough.

      However, the one inescapable fact that the learned author omitted and/or overlooked is that Mr. Garner’s statement “…this stops here” is nothing short of a statement of “Intent”, physical or otherwise. It is that damning statement that authorized the use of force.

      Nevertheless, what leads me back to the criminal negligence is that without doubt, Panatelo could have eased up when Garner was subdued with 5 officers over him on the ground.

      The ‘worst’ and most despicable act of all you ask, which is criminally AND morally neglect? The indifference Mr. Garner received as a human being when laying there limp on the ground.

      The neglect by the offending officers and medical staff in attending to Mr. Garner’s physical distress was morally repugnant and criminally negligent particularly when committed at the hands of those sworn to serve and protect.

      The grand jury and the complicitous DA were legally incorrect and should have let a jury of their peers decide if criminal negligence had been committed.

      Though they were incorrect, God will be ther judge, in this you can take comfort.

      RIP Mr. Garner.

      • efraim mackellar

        Excuse me! LOL.Please,sir, where did I say I wanted a “single, n a z I – like, party state,” ? Also, where is my alleged bias ? Quite incredible.

        • bob smith

          Excuse me Mr. Incredulous Intellect. When one opens their sewer pipe and expulses gaseous discord such as “…This kind of “conservative” self righteousness sickens me. Too many so called conservatives are just bigots when you get right down to it.”, it would be pretty clear to any REASONABLE-minded person that this isn’t about Mr. Garner, this is about you using that man’s death in your progressive search of your single party solution.

          How?

          Easy enough. Let me repeat, “This kind of “conservative” self righteousness sickens me. Too many so called conservatives are just bigots when you get right down to it.”, Has NOTHING to do with anything you idiot but you and your bias.

          Of everything I wrote you responded to what mattered, you!

          Piss off.

          • efraim mackellar

            You just exposed yourself for exactly what you are.

            “Too many so called conservatives are just bigots when you get right down to it.”, ”

            That statement really hit a raw nerve,didn’t it ? It just sums you up.

          • bob smith

            You are laughable what with your infantile statement of conservative this, conservative that. Bigot this, bigot that. You hit nothing but your thin-skinned, pathetic attempt at reasoning and like your entire life, you failed. This is why you are on this site, to cause friction for the sake of friction rather than debate the issues. For you, it conservatives are bad, you are good.

            If you can give yourself a rest on labeling everything (I highly doubt it) all that you don’t understand, perhaps you will see just how comical you are. Rather than hide ignorance behind your false bravado, you may wish to redirect your illogical and misguided rants towards facts, not fiction as I so clearly did in my post.

            A recap, shall we;

            Me:
            I believe your search for an enemy in “conservatives” vs your progressive whatever leaves your integrity as represented by your argument in doubt. Notwithstanding your overt bias and dislike, not to mention your quest for a single, n a z I – like, party state,…

            You:

            Excuse me! LOL.Please,sir, where did I say I wanted a “single, n a z I -like, party state,” ? Also, where is my alleged bias ? Quite incredible.

            Me:

            Excuse me Mr. Incredulous Intellect. When one opens their sewer pipe and expulses gaseous discord such as “…This kind of “conservative” self righteousness sickens me. Too many so called conservatives are just bigots when you get right down to it.”, it would be pretty clear to any REASONABLE-minded person that this isn’t about Mr. Garner, this is about you using that man’s death in your progressive search of your single party solution.

            You:
            You just exposed yourself for exactly what you are.

            Me:
            You should never ask a question that the answer was so obvious. No sir, I believe I struck your nerve with your prior stated idiocy.

            When you are capable of discussing facts, perhaps I will respond. But don’t get your hopes up, troll.

          • efraim mackellar

            So I am the one who is labelling ? Really ? So you calling me a n a z i and one-party-state proposer, is not labeling ? Oh, and “troll” too.

            You are just so obviously projecting. You are no conservative, mister, or you would be more truly liberal.

          • bob smith

            Not in the least. I simply despise your smug ‘we are better than them’ arrogance. Case closed. Move along now, you are crowding the sidewalk, troll.

          • efraim mackellar

            More projecting. Leave now. Your lack of dignity exposed you for what you are.

          • bob smith

            LMFAO…you should seriously seek out some psychiatric support. In the very least, get the fk off your mother’s couch and get some fresh air. Your fat head is in desperate need of it.

          • efraim mackellar

            I would HATE for such as you to have any power or authority because all I see in your comments is evil, utter evil.

          • bob smith

            I and mine do just fine thank you. Unlike you, a mouthpiece who spews rancid venom tossing labels upon people in a high-handed manner, I put my mouth where the issues are, in the streets. Be it from numerous charitable causes I am involved with to varying degrees of community involvement, I am confident that I give back.

            You? Just from your rants it is quite clear that you are your best pet project. Good luck with that.

          • efraim mackellar

            Just nasty and evil.

    • DaCoachK

      The fact that he said, “I can’t breathe” indicates that he could breathe. While this incident is unfortunate, the bottom line is if Garner hadn’t resisted arrest, he’d be alive right now–maybe. He had numerous health problems, so maybe he would not have died. The grand jury had to prove that the officer intended to hurt the guy. He didn’t. No indictment. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your emotional response. You are emblematic of the Left: emotion over logic and reason.

      • efraim mackellar

        The fact that he cried, “I can’t breathe!” indicated that he could ? Yes, but with great difficulty, obviously. Perhaps he should have been more articulate and said, “I am having some difficulty breathing. Could you loosen your choke-hold somewhat?” It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious..

        • Sheik Yerbouti

          He could have simply stopped fighting with the cops. How can so many people overlook that 1 obvious fact?

          • MrUniteUs1

            The obvious fact is that he didn’t fight back. He kept his palms open.

          • Sheik Yerbouti

            You focus on that as your “proof” in this matter? Gee, he was also “unarmed” right? Are you suggesting that with his palms visible that resisting arrest is acceptable? Or are you suggesting that the only way to fight is to clench your fists? Seriously man, what point are you making here?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            He wasn’t fighting after the police piled on top of him. In fact, he wasn’t even breathing…

        • claspur

          If he didn’t have so much fat laying-heavy on his lungs, his air-flow would’ve been much better also.

          • efraim mackellar

            Yes, and if the cop didn’t have so much fat inside his ears he might have listened to the poor guy.

      • MrUniteUs1

        I can’t breathe is what human beings say when there ability to breathe is severely restricted. No one says ‘my ability to breathe is severely restricted’. Indeed Garner’s to breathe was severely restriced. He passed out several seconds later. Police made no attempt to revive him. EMT arrived 7 minutes later.

        It indicates that it his ability to breathe was severely restricted. Indeed he stopped breathing several seconds later, and passed out. Police did nothing to revive him.

        No one says my ability to breathe is severely restricted.

    • claspur

      Cops didn’t kill the man.
      He died at the hospital from his ill health.
      You reread the article too.

      • efraim mackellar

        Exacerbated by a cop who was deliberately depriving him of oxygen. I don’t need to re-read the article.

      • MrUniteUs1

        He died on they way to the hospital. This is even more damming against the police officers that piled on top of Garner, then did nothing to revive him.

    • StanleyT

      .

    • Gislef

      Disliking known criminals isn’t bigotry.

      Are there a lot of conservatives demanding action against policemen choking white known criminals? If those same “bigots” aren’t demanding action here, that would show bigotry. At least by any reasonable standard.

  • DaCoachK

    Here’s a solution: police officers cannot arrest black males. Ever. Period. When approaching a black male, if a police officer says anything other than, “Hope you have a wonderful day,” then that officer is guilty of racist, racial-profiling and should be fired. Lastly, each and every police officer needs to arrest many, many white guys to atone for the racist practices the past few decades of arresting black males. All of this could be implemented, and Al Sharpton would protest that the old way needed to be brought back because it’s racist or something.

    • sundance69

      Efraim would love that.

      • efraim mackellar

        Your intelligence (?) is showing more and more with every post.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        You’re misrepresenting Efraim, Robert (and myself as well).

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      This degree of sarcasm is not warranted, nor is the fallacy of False Dichotomy much of an argument. My view (and I think it is close to that of Efraim and Wildjew) is that of course the police may use reasonable force when arresting black males or anyone else. However, they should not use techniques which any ordinary person would realize could cause a suspect’s death unless that suspect threatens to do them serious bodily injury. In other words, the police should obey the same laws as the rest of us – especially regarding homicide.

      A badge is not a license to kill – unless your ideal society is a fascist police state.

      • truebearing

        Have you ever tried to take down a man that big, especially when he is resisting?

        That wasn’t a choke hold. I was a wrestler in high school and have studied martial arts. I know what a choke hold is, and I have experienced them in practice. That wasn’t a choke hold. He wouldn’t be able to breathe or speak if that was a true choke hold.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          I have avoided getting into the question of precisely what hold was used – was it a “choke” hold or some other kind? – because that could cause us to become distracted from real issue. (It would be relevant to an administrative hearing to determine whether the “choke” technique used was within departmental guidelines.) The fact which must not be lost sight of is that this hold, whatever it was (the ME called it a choke hold), in combination with the way this man was forced face down and kept there in that position (police are supposed to know better) is what caused his death. That makes the police responsible for his death, and the only question remaining was whether this use of lethal force was allowed under the law. Since Garner was not putting anyone in danger of serious bodily injury, the answer to that question is “no”.

          Every time I add this up, I get the same answer: negligent homicide.

          • truebearing

            You’re missing a key point. That wasn’t lethal force. if it was, Garner never would have made it into an ambulance before he was dead. The ME was incorrect in calling that hold a “choke hold.”

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            Again, more medical speculation on your part. I have to believe the ME is both more qualified to a medical opinion than you are and that he had the benefit of performing an autopsy on the body which you didn’t. Unless, that is, there is some new evidence suggesting the ME was wrong – and I haven’t heard of any.

          • efraim mackellar

            Anyone seeing the video can see it’s a choke hold. A child can tell what a choke hold is. You’re just trying to be clever. Obviously it was a choke hold. It caused Garner’s larynx to be restricted. When the hold was relaxed he was able to get enough air to cry out, “I can’t breathe!” several times before a big cop compressed his head against the sidewalk and his breathing became restricted again. Lack of oxygen led to a full on heart attack which eventually killed him.

  • wildjew

    Glenn Beck on Garner: ‘How This Cop Did Not Go to Jail Is Beyond Me’by Josh Feldman | 1:00 pm, December 4th, 2014 VIDEO

    Glenn Beck was absolutely incensed today by the Eric Garner case, calling it “obscene” and saying at the very least, “manslaughter should have been considered.”

    Beck and his co-hosts agreed that not only did Garner not do anything to provoke such a fatal response, but that he didn’t really resist arrest. Pat Gray said the video was “heart-wrenching” to watch, while Stu Burguiere, who described himself as a very pro-police guy, just couldn’t take their side on this one.

    Beck said, “How this cop did not go to jail and was not held responsible is beyond me.” He argued this is not at all like Ferguson, because in this case there’s video evidence, but there’s also not any explanation of the grand jury’s decision here.

    And he sent a strong message to conservatives warning them not to lump the two together:

    “If you want to have any credibility, you cannot lump Ferguson with this one. This is the New York police completely out of control. They did not murder him, but manslaughter absolutely should have been considered. Why that wasn’t considered is beyond me.”

    • MrUniteUs1

      Right wingnuts should understand, that when you’ve lost Glen Beck, you’ve have lost the argument.

      • efraim mackellar

        So what about when blacks lose Charles Barkley and Allen West ? Have they lost their argument too ?

        • claspur

          You need to start paying better attention.
          Many blacks-now, are seeing the light and are fed-up with being stuck on you and your ilk’s plantation.

          • efraim mackellar

            One thing I know is that you are a true Goebellsian conservative.

          • RAM500

            Goebbels was a radical, not a conservative. He is the true model for today’s radical left hate media.

          • efraim mackellar

            I know, and that is what I am insinuating.

          • claspur

            Nonsense.
            Let me ask you a question I’ll bet you can’t answer, satisfactorily-anyway, okay?

        • MrUniteUs1

          lol, I wasn’t aware that those two men had a large base of Black political supporters. What did they say about the Eric Garner killing.

          • efraim mackellar

            I didn’t say they had. But they are intelligent, independent minded, black men. They have no racial bias so it tends to discredit the black mob mindset. They utterly condemn the behavior of blacks in general when they demonstrate. Also, they are critical of the blacks who wield power and influence. Allen West is very critical of Sharpton, whom he calls a race-baiter and rabble-rouser.

          • MrUniteUs1

            They have a right to their opinion. But I draw a line of demarcation between peaceful demonstrators, and looters. Be interesting to see if they agree with you and Glenn Beck regarding the killing of Eric Garner and the secret grand jury decision.

      • wildjew

        Authentic conservatives are not “rightwing” nuts anymore than a Classical Liberal is a leftwing Obama-supporting loon.

        • MrUniteUs1

          That’s why I wrote right wingnuts and not conservatives.
          Not all conservatives are right wingnuts. i.e. John Boehner is a conservative but he is not a rightwing nut.

          • wildjew

            I guess it all depends on your definition of conservatism. Boehner might have some conservative leanings compared to Nancy Pelosi but like former President G. W. Bush, McCain, Romney and others he has some progressive or leftist leanings that are unpalatable to conservatives. No authentic conservative is going to say (like Mr. Boehner did), “I absolutely trust President Obama.” No genuine conservative is going to support the Palestinian genocidal cause like Bush, Romney and little doubt John Boehner does.

          • MrUniteUs1

            I think most Americans are a combination of both.
            For instance the issues of abortion and gay marriage,
            are fluid and cross party lines. Garner was a husband, son, father, grandfather, and Santa Claus to his grandchildren. Good to see Americans from different backgrounds and political leanings protest.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Glad to have Glenn with us on this one.

    • Michael Garfinkel

      Since when is the hysterical Glenn Beck an oracle for the Right?

      • wildjew

        I’m not sure how I would categorize Glenn Beck.

    • JayWye

      Beck went off the rails long ago.

  • Big_Foot

    Also not fitting the narrative:
    12. The police sergeant who supervised Garner’s arrest was black (and female).
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/12/breaking-eric-garner-arrest-death-supervised-by-black-female-police-sergeant/

    • claspur

      Efraim won’t let that fact-either, get in the way of his anti-cop agenda in here….no way, now how. *spit

  • RAM500

    “11. Less than a month after Garner’s death, Ramsey Orta, who shot the much-viewed videotape of the encounter, was indicted on weapons charges. Police alleged that Orta had slipped a .25-caliber handgun into a teenage accomplice’s waistband outside a New York hotel.”

    Did this cause some problem with Orta’s camera?

    • efraim mackellar

      Of course. It meant it somehow falsified the evidence. LOL.

    • JayWye

      selective taping can cause a false opinion. Michael Moore does it all the time. Ofthen,the taping doesn’t start until well after the incident has begun,and much that is important is NOT seen,like what caused the ruckus.
      it’s why the NFL films from several different angles to decide a critical call.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    We can add one more item here, there were several officers involved in the take down with a BLACK female police sergeant overseeing the arrest. I would demand a review of the autopsy and I am willing to bet that there were several possible causes of this man dying of a heart attack (not a choke hold). Even the idiot talking heads at Fox News have been ignoring the real FACTS in this case. As is almost always the case the suspect has a boat load of criminal arrests. Maybe we should have evaluations as to how citizens should act when confronted with a police officer. How about do not resist arrest PERIOD!

    • MrUniteUs1

      He didn’t resist. He kept his palms open the whole time. Even when he was on the ground he kept his arm outstretched and his palm open. He never attempted to punch or grab any of the officers. Much has been said about the size of this big tall dark skinned Black man. His mere size and perceived superhuman strength was a threat to some whites. Yet he didn’t use his size and strength to fight off the officers. Keep in the man was husband father, and Santa Clause for his grandchildren. He had much to live for.

      • truebearing

        He stated that he wouldn’t be arrested. That is resisting arrest. Any man of his size would have gotten the same treatment, but wouldn’t have died unless they also had the same deadly underlying health problems.

        This had nothing to do with race… unless you are trying to make the case that blacks are prone to criminal behavior and suffering from apnea, asthma, diabtetes, and heart problems.

        He had all of those health problems, yet he was apparently a smoker of both cigarettes and pot, was way overweight, and chose to struggle with police instead of accept that he was busted. I guess he didn’t care about HIS children and grandchildren, did he.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Warning to all those with health issues. If police grab you around the neck, throw you down to ground, mash your head to the pavement, pile up on top of you, restrict your breathing ,and you die, your health will be blamed.

    • JayWye

      Grow up.

  • maritimer_is_back_again

    The medical examiner stated that the death was a homicide, in other words, death at the hands of another person. The asthma and obesity contributed but were not the main cause of death.

    • JayWye

      “not the main cause of death”? the fat guy died of cardiac arrest,a “heart attack”. NOT from “choking”. He died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Maybe fare jumping should be a capital crime too. And littering.

  • Dan Knight

    Jim, this is important exculpatory information, and it explains why the officers involved were exonerated. … But, we are reading this story in light of the Brown case, the over-reaction in Ferguson, and the under-reaction in NY. It’s unlikely Garner would have garnered more than a passing comment by the usual suspects but for the Brown case.

    Garner was a petty criminal engaged in selling cigarettes. Comparing the Brown case to the Garner case, it is the latter and not the former which demanded the ensuing investigation and questions. The officers in the Garner case mishandled the situation. By comparison, based on the Grand Jury evidence in the Brown case, Ofc Wilson is lucky to be alive.

    Bottom-line: Brown is dead, and the fault lies with Brown. Garner is dead, and the fault lies with the NYC police dept. Albeit, the case is not ‘racist’ nor ‘criminal’ according to the facts, it’s still not right that the man should be dead.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Justice Scalia wrote:

      “It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.”

      http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/justice-scalia-explains-why-ferguson-grand-jury-was-completely-wrong

      • Dan Knight

        Hi MrUniteUs,
        It’s a good point. But it’s also irrelevant to the post unless it reaches Scotus due to a procedural error. Real law/justice/procedure is like sausage. It doesn’t work the way us mortals think it does: And sometimes that’s bad, but not always.

        Remember in the starry fields of SCOTUS law, the details are very important. Assuming Scalia is correct (and I’d bet he’s right), he is merely point to the right to testify or present exculpatory evidence. I can guess why: To protect a prosecutor’s right to bring a defendant to trial.

        Having the right to testify or to present exculpatory evidence to a Grand Jury is not the same as holding that the Grand Jury has no authority to hear testimony of the accused or exculpatory evidence. Grand Juries usually return indictments. When they don’t, it’s almost always because they heard exculpatory evidence (Paul Harvey’s ‘Rest of the Story’) and declined to waste further resources on the case.

        Remember: The right to present anything at the G.J. could be nullified without harm in all but the most limited cases. The defendant’s have the right to present evidence at trial. And if the prosecution withholds exculpatory evidence, the consequences are dire. Prosecutors rarely go to prison for crucifying an innocent defendant, but they have lost their license to practice and had their reputations ruined for mere negligence.

        Applying Scalia’s comment in the Garner case, where the G.J. heard the exculpatory evidence would not work for Mr. Garner. Having no right to bring such evidence does not mean it is a procedural error to bring such evidence. Rather the opposite in fact. The Grand Jury has a duty to hear all of the relevant evidence, and any evidence likely to be presented at trial must be presented if it’s available in most jurisdictions. A mistake on this point is unlikely to cause a mistrial unless the evidence was actually “dispositive” and would nullify or change the legal or factual results of critical issue in the case.

        In the Garner case, for this to be relevant, we’d probably have to have a procedural error at the G.J. level, and legal procedural pattern would have to line up to conflict with the law. It’s very doubtful such a situation occurred in the Garner case.

        More likely, the G.J. heard the exculpatory evidence, weighed the facts, and decided not to indict without any procedural error. If they failed to give due consideration to Mr. Garner’s health, it was because we have a practice of judging cases involving Government differently than those involving business or private citizens.

        And as a criminal case the threshold for prosecution is higher. Were this a civil case, and the five officers were five brawlers, the case certainly should go to trial, and probably would have.

        So, the case goes up a notch as a criminal case, and then add another notch for pro-government bias.

        Had Mr. Garner had the misfortune to die in a bar fight, and his attacker were exonerated of a manslaughter or ‘criminal’ negligence charge, it would still go to civil court where the attacker, the bar, and likely a bevy of bystanders would all lose.

        But the threshold for holding police accountable is much higher, and it is going up everyday thanks to pro-government bias and the increasing difficulty of slipping through all the established precedents of all the prior cases. This is one of the ironies of “demanding” accountability from officers. Remember they usually have competent legal representation – not for them – but to protect city hall, their union, and their politicians from blow back.

        Rather than get upset, I’d put together a civil trial on the same facts: And demand an injunction against such arrests, and proscription of the tactics, investigation of dept practices, re-training on arrest procedures, and a bifurcated punitive settlement: One part for the family as a deterrent to the department, and another part that may be waived to ensure compliance.

        I doubt that’ll happen. We’re militarizing the police almost as fast as we’re driving a wedge between our officers and their communities. It’s an explosive mix.

        Hope that helps. The explanation is only partial. Different legal
        areas, jurisdictions, case law, etc, and produce wildly different and
        surprising results. (Trust me – this isn’t easy or they’d be selling it
        at Walmart!)

        Peace to you and yours, and Merry Christmas!

        • MrUniteUs1

          Appreciate time you took in your response but it appears that your disagree with Justice Scalia. I have a serious problem with the recent decisions to allow the suspect tell there story in secret, before a secret grand jury, where even the voting results of the grand jury remain secret.
          This is even more egregious when the victim cannot testify because the suspect killed the victim. That sends a terrible and dangerous message to society. “Dead men tell no tales”. At the minimum cases involving death should be held in open court. For example, a preliminary hearing before a judge or go to trial. I believe anyone who has a friend or relative killed deserves to see the killer stand trial.

          • JayWye

            “secret Grand Jury” is a group of CIVILIANS,people off the street. it’s that “civilian review” that people often want when police are thought to have “screwed up”.

            their identities are kept secret so they cannot be influenced or relatives threatened.
            Sheesh.

        • JayWye

          Grand Juries are specifically for the purpose of finding whether a case is sufficient to take to trial.
          it’s not a trial in itself.
          it does take the responsibility off the Prosecutor,the State or City Attorneys,and puts it in CIVILIAN hands,the “will of the people”.
          People ought to be cheering that.
          It seems people often call for civilian review of police actions.This is what they’re wanting.

          • Dan Knight

            True. Though, the prosecutors have a strong hand in swaying the presentation. Which cuts both ways depending on the politics of the DA’s office. But you’re right, it is the decision of the civilians in the end.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    Facts are irrelevant to the demonstrators and politicians who have seized upon this incident to further their own goals. See http://clarespark.com/2014/12/04/race-relations-as-managed-by-the-left/. “Race relations as managed by the Left.” Eleanor Holmes Norton was especially clear on this point in her obstreperous interaction with Sean Hannity last night. She said she was interested in “the larger picture.”

  • Colt

    Another lawless parasite no longer on the streets. I view this as a win,

    • efraim mackellar

      What a despicable comment. Utterly callous.

      • Colt

        What’s the matter Skippy? Does the truth hurt?

        • efraim mackellar

          One thing for sure: it’ll never hurt you. That’s blatantly obvious.

          • Colt

            Go cry me a river. Better yet go rile up a cop.

          • efraim mackellar

            So now we have psychos posting on FPM.

          • Colt

            Yeah I am psycho because I disagree with you. I bet if Garner was a white guy you would care less. What about taking up for that Bosnian guy in St. Louis who was killed by a pack of black ( and one Hispanic) teens with hammers?

          • efraim mackellar

            You don’t deserve a reply but I will deign to offer one. You are a psycho because you think a man involved in a petty crime deserved to die.

            Yes I abhor and condemn the murder of the Bosnian. Also, as far as I can judge the available evidence, Darren Wilson was justified in his use of deadly force if, as he claims, he felt his life was in imminent danger.

            But the compression of Eric Garner’s head, neck and chest, and lack of CPR, were contributory factors in his decease.

    • Bastiat

      What is your opinion on Panteleo’s violations of NYPD policy? Do you not know that he was subject to two investigations in the last couple years?

      • JayWye

        if you don’t know the result of those investigations,you’re just tarring him before he’s found guilty of them.
        IOW, lynching.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Garner was selling single, untaxed cigarettes to poor people who couldn’t afford Lefty Democrats’ $6.00 per pack tax. Hardly a parasite, and it’s tragic that the Democrats’ greed for taxpayer money ultimately caused this man’s death.

      • Colt

        The guy was a career criminal. If he had not resisted the police officer he might still be alive. Just getting tired of the police always getting blamed by the idiots in the MSM not to mention the Lefties.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          Maybe that explains the division here. It’s true that this incident will be shamefully used and exploited by the Left. But what Ephraim, Wildjew, and myself are trying to get across is that we Conservatives cannot allow that fact to lead us into always siding with the police. They are, after all, government agents, and Conservatives should know that like all government agents they sometimes abuse their authority and should be held to account when they do.

          • JayWye

            People here do NOT “always side with the police”.
            We didn’t at Waco or Ruby Ridge. We didn’t for Abner Louima. or the other guys NYPD mistakenly shot down in hails of gunfire.
            WE can differentiate between “abuse” and real abuse.

      • JayWye

        He -was- a parasite,because he was unemployed,because he was too unhealthy for work.

  • MrUniteUs1

    NYPD settled civil case against Daniel Pantaleo for $30,000. Another case pending.

    • Dan Knight

      Wow, something wrong there! I’d think $300k would be the minimum. I’d demand $3 million to avoid a trial, and aim to settle for half. Counsel must be incompetent.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        I think the $30K was for an earlier case. I would imagine the city’s is going to get clobbered when this case gets to civil court.

        • Dan Knight

          Yes, you’re probably right.

          Merry Christmas!

          • MrUniteUs1

            Yes this was before Garner was killed.

          • Dan Knight

            Yes, I didn’t catch that at first.

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    DID THE NEW YORK MEDICAL EXAMINER LIE ABOUT THE CAUSE OF ERIC GARNER’S DEATH?

    The answer is YES!

    Click http://www.apollospeaks.com and judge for yourself

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    While it’s true the Left is trying to exploit this case just as they did with Ferguson, the two really have nothing in common and it’s quite possible that this time the grand jury blew it. I’m a little concerned to see some of my fellow Conservatives so blindly supporting the police and forgetting that one of the bedrock principles in a free republic is that agents of the government must obey the same laws as everyone else. And in fact, NY among other states already goes too far in my view in granting the police special consideration that the plain citizen does not have. But even given that extra latitude, it seems clear to me that a crime has been committed. Meyers’ argument here is really quite weak and easily rebutted:

    1,2. No one is arguing that Garner was right to resist arrest, even though his resistance basically consisted of raising his arms and backing away. But that doesn’t justify the use of lethal force by police.

    3. Garner’s record is not relevant here. The issue is whether or not the police used excessive force, which Meyers is clearly evading by bringing this up.

    4. Garner was out on bail at the time – again, so what? Even if he had been convicted of those offenses, which he hadn’t, police don’t get to declare open season and go hunting. More smoke from Meyers.

    5, 6. Here Meyers is trying to conceal the cause of Garner’s death as given in the ME’s report. While it is true that Garner’s physical condition was given as a contributing factor, the actual cause of his death was “compression of his neck (chokehold), compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police”. It is for this reason the ME classified the death as a homicide.

    7. Whether the “takedown” technique was a “chokehold” or not depends on the precise definitions of those terms. Whether the technique was within departmental guidelines is an administrative matter. As far as a possible criminal violation goes, the question is whether what the officers did was lethal force. I contend it was: what they did to Garner killed him, whether it was the “chokehold” or piling on his chest so that he couldn’t breathe, and a reasonable person would have realized this could kill him, especially since Garner complained of being unable to breath. This to me constitutes negligence – a key component of negligent homicide.

    8. All right, not all the testimony has been made public. But the video and the ME’s report between them are damning, and the only excuse I can think of for not indicting anyone is that it may not have been clear to the grand jury which of the officers actually caused Garner’s death.

    9. The racial makeup of the grand jury proves it wasn’t racist, but no one except Leftist agitators ever suggested it was. I don’t think the police were racist either, but I do think their reckless actions caused a man’s death, and that they should have to answer for it.

    10. As explained earlier, the police caused Garner’s death by compressing his neck and chest. Any reasonably prudent person would realize that doing so could cause the death of a person even in normal health. Thus the standard for negligence was met.

    11. More smoke! So Orta, who shot the video, was arrested on “weapons charges,” i.e. he possessed a gun, which in a free society is not a crime. (NYC is of course not a free society with its draconian anti-gun laws). I guess we should forget everything on the video then.

    We Conservatives are supposed to value ordered liberty. That means we have order, yes, but it does not mean we extol the peace and quiet of the fascist police state. No matter how difficult the job may be, a police officer must show the same justification for using lethal force any private citizen would. There was none in this case.

    • Sheryl Tribble

      You make some valid points, but I question two of them, specifically 7 ” a reasonable person would have realized this could kill him” and 10 “Any reasonably prudent person would realize that doing so could cause the death of a person even in normal health”

      If it can be shown that the cops were taught to pin people down that way, and especially if it can be shown that the cops involved have frequently pinned others that way without harm, then they could have reasonably (although obviously inaccurately) assumed that their actions would cause no harm. Whether that’s the case, I dunno, but it’s something I’d want to find out if I were on the Grand Jury.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Unfortunately, one of the things we don’t know at this point is what testimony the grand jury heard about police chokeholds. I would say, though, that common sense ought to tell you that if you press your arm tightly enough against the front of the neck, you might cut off the subject’s air supply. And the danger of positional asphyxia, which it appears played a part here, is known to police, and certainly should have been part of these officers’ training.

    • JayWye

      Idiotic;police were NOT “using lethal force”. your credibility evaporates with that statement.
      the force they used would not have killed the average,healthy person.

      Police are under no obligation to back off if an arrestee doesn’t want to be arrested.
      BTW,since he was on bail,he violated the terms of his bail and could be arrested legally.

      disclaimer; IANAL.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        I’ve addressed the lethal force question several times elsewhere including another response to you. I maintain a reasonable person would have realized that the hold used, plus keeping Garner handcuffed in a prone position, could have fatal results – and that’s all that’s necessary to constitute “lethal force”. By the way, the dangers of positional asphyxia are known to the police; it would be very interesting to know what the grand jury was told about NYPD training on this subject.

        Next we come the straw men that we on the other side (and we’re not taking any extreme position, by the way) keep hearing: police can’t just back away from making an arrest. I think we all know that, Jay, but lethal force (and we come back again to our argument on that point) is never legally justified merely to effect an arrest – it is only justified if the suspect is threatening the officers with death or serious bodily injury. I hope you will concede that that was not the case here.

  • knowshistory

    there is a precedent. if a victim of police violence says he cant breathe, he is obviously lying, and the violence must continue. if, on the other hand, the victim does not say he cant breathe, then the violence must continue. the precedent is well known. if you tie up a suspect and throw her in the water, if she floats, she is a witch, and must be burned. or hung. or whatever. if she sinks, then she was innocent, and the gang that killed her can go to the next case. btw, resisting arrest means the police committed violence, and needed an excuse. so they blame the victim by charging resisting arrest, and are almost never punished for their crimes.

  • s;vbkr0boc,klos;

    Make huge traffic jams and crap on Christmas. I love it, the more the better Man, these nihilistic narcissists are going to be HATED bigtime.

  • SpeedersKill

    How are the cops supposed to know you are unarmed?. Anyone, esp a huge man, can have a knife hidden on them and the cops know that.. That’s why you don’t resist arrest.

  • tagalog

    Andrew McCarthy has published a commentary on the Eric Garner grand jury decision and raises the interesting, and critical, issue: did the grand jury reach a decision specifically on the question of whether or not the chokehold was a reasonable use of force on Garner? If they did, okay; if not, they should have. McCarthy’s conclusion that an indictment would have made sense, and that a trial in this instance was justified, is well explained.

    Viewing the video alone, it certainly appears that the chokehold is at least questionable. Yes, he was slapping their hands away, yes, he was interfering with the cops and resisting, but still… Garner was not Michael Brown and Staten Island is not Ferguson.

    • PI by Nature

      The issue might have been around training as well. Apparently, the NYPD has been training its officers to subdue people using this technique.

      • JayWye

        Not so much “subdue” as “take down” to enable safe handcuffing.
        a large,fat guy like Garner can be hard to cuff if resisting and he’s allowed freedom to move. Like if he’s standing. it’s like trying to stop Refrigerator Perry.

  • laura r

    eric garner & mike brown are apples & oranges.

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    How do we even begin to deal with the outrage of over 1,000 citizens being executed in the streets each year without trial? This is the number of police shootings estimated by press compilations since the government and law enforcement don’t even track the real figure. When 84% of surveyed officers admit to witnessing and not reporting excessive use of force, the entire system is corrupt. You can’t call these murders isolated incidences anymore. This brand of pig’s head soup is bitter to swallow at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2014/12/pigs-head-soup-outrage-of-justifiable.html where we’re burning it down.

    • JayWye

      nice use of inflammatory words like “executed”,as if police were deliberately out to kill criminals.
      yeah,appeal to emotion and not rational thought.

  • Eddy J. Secco

    In NYC, if you’re caught selling small amounts of marijuana, you get a ticket. If you sell individual cigarettes, you get arrested? Something is very wrong here.

    • JayWye

      then change the law.
      don’t try to ignore it and allow people to violate the law.

      I suspect if you’re caught selling MJ numerous times,eventually,you will not be issued a ticket,you’ll be arrested. Garner was free on bail from a previous arrest for selling “loosies”. (the 6th time,IIRC.)
      and a store owner made a complaint,which is why police were them to arrest him. They HAD to,NYC mayor’s orders.

  • Horace Yo

    Violent robber-thug Mike Brown robbed a store and minutes later punched Officer Darren Wilson in the head and tried to grab his gun getting shot in the hand/arm in the police car. They found his blood in the car and on Wilsons hands and clothes. He then charged Wilson probably going for the gun again to kill him. He was obviously a dangerous criminal and unfortunately had to be shot.RIP. Eric Garner at worst sold some loose tobacco cigarettes and should have maybe got a ticket to appear in court or send in a fine penalty.Yes he shouldn’t have resisted but why was an arrest needed? Instead a number of NYPD cops choked him to death while he cried “I can’t breathe” while they were trying to choke him. They ignored his dying pleas and kept choking him. He stopped calling out after Pantaleo succeeded in choking him unconscious. They didn’t try CPR etc. They let him die. It’s on video nationwide and most people watching the unedited video would agree that’s what happened.
    The Ferguson lynch mob was headed to severe public relations losses in defending the violent criminal Mike Brown with media lies, unpunished perjury and vicious mob behavior burning down Ferguson etc. and were being increasingly discredited. Conservatives defending Pantaleo who was going to get off anyway is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by demonstrating a “foolish consistency” in defending NYPD when they kill some petty tax evader. Cigarette tax evasion shouldn’t be a capital crime, it’s an extremely small thing. Most NY smokers engage in it every chance they get. Plus it’s obvious Ramsey Orta was tailed and watched to get busted for keeping and bearing arms (a constitutional right in plain language totally ignored in NY) as a punishment for videotaping the cops in action (another constitutional right.) Back off and fight a winning battle.

  • malinse

    What causes certain segments of our society to flaunt the law and feel they can do crimes in public? The same groups who complain the most about police inequality are also the ones who are out in broad daylight breaking the laws. If I had warrants and wants, I sure wouldn’t be out on the street, in front of a store committing crime. I think I know the answer, so I will answer my own question: The so-called community leaders who create the victim-class, make these people feel they are entitled to special treatment and waivers from the law; and no structure and discipline in the home has caused a whole segment of society to possibly think; “since I didn’t have a daddy at home, you can’t expect me to do the right thing”.

  • ultimatrompeta

    To me, it’s 1 less criminal off the streets.

  • Soldier

    The KKK owns this website. Putting someone in a chokehold is not legal and assaulting someone that didn’t assault you is not legal. I don’t care if they have a badge or not. They did not have the right to assault Eric Garner. He wasn’t even selling looses that day. These same pigs are the same pigs that harass me in my town when I DO NOTHING WRONG. WE ARE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR THIS INJUSTICE ANYMORE.

    • joe kulak

      I don’t think the Demokkkrat Party owns it.
      The arrest was overkill (no pun intended). But realize, these officers don’t make policy, the rules of engagement; they follow their training. They don’t deserve to be called pigs merely because they stand for authority that you were never taught to respect. If you’re being harassed the odds are you’re asking for it, Homey.

  • Mickey “the wrench”

    Illegal untaxed cigarettes. Oh, but he was “breaking the law”, the Nanny State doesn’t think you should smoke. Doesn’t the absurdity of that occur to anyone? You can be put in jail and possible be killed for selling cigarettes? Any time someone says to you that “it’s a free country”, laugh in his face, because it isn’t.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    I’m surprised we here haven’t compared this case with the Rodney King case.

    King was videotaped as he was subdued by police. Officer Koon was charged but the trial was moved out of Los Angles because the court decided he couldn’t get a fair trial in Los Angles. He was acquitted as he found to be following police policy. That policy was never questioned nor changed.

    Janet Reno decided to charge him again (even the ACLU quietly complained about double jeopardy). After the L.A. riots, she viewed that city as now safe for a fair trial. He was convicted. After the trial the jury appeared on television and showed how close minded they were. They kept saying “the video is enough” and refuse to address issued raised by the defense or media.

    With Obama/Holder being worse than Clinton/Reno who doubts that we are seeing a replay? Are we not already heard chants of “the video is enough?”

    • PI by Nature

      The Rodney King videotape started late. This did not. There isn’t even a comparison.

  • SoCalMike

    I have no problem with Officer Wilson blowing Michael Brown away. More power to Officer Wilson and anyone else in that situation but I saw the video of this and I’m not ok with a guy losing his life for the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes.
    It surprises me so many people are but we don’t have to agree.

  • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

    Garner was one of those criminally minded people drawn to flout laws intended to “reform” people and also to raise tax revenue, in this instance he sold untaxed cigarettes in New York City, which, with all the federal, state, and city taxes are going for $15 a pack or more. If you’re a smoker, you’re supposed to balk at paying $15; that’s what the anti-smoking activists want. But the State prefers that you pay the $15, which is supposed to fill the government’s coffers but in fact does little to compensate for the government’s spendthrift habits.

    During Prohibition, the federal government spent more on enforcement than it collected in taxes and penalties on alcohol consumption. And making, importing via smuggling, and selling alcohol sired the gangs and gang warfare. When Prohibition ended, the country was left with the gangs, which turned to promote drug usage. And even before the government began regulating drugs, the country had no “drug problem,” except for the occasional criminal who was hopped up on drugs. If you were “hooked,” you could buy the stuff legally over the counter in Ma and Pa drugstores.

    Anyway, the incremental, decades-old war against smoking and cigarettes has seen few but publicity hogging headlines. Muslim gangs have entered the tax-avoidance smuggling racket, and their takings more often than not go directly to the general pot of jihad/terrorism funding. Muslims also run “Ma and Pa” convenience stores and stores that sell only cigarettes and other tobacco products. Who supplies these gangs and stores with smokes? Probably a few anonymous corporations that disguise their Mideast origins and buy in bulk from the manufacturers. Also, cigarette manufacturers’ trucks are often hijacked, or their warehouses pilfered.

    I live in Virginia. A pack of mid-list cigarettes (Pall Malls, L&M’s, but not Marlboros, which is a premium brand) cost me about $3.10 with the taxes; with a discount coupon from the manufacturer, it comes to about $2.80.

    The solution to keeping the Eric Garners off the street (or in jail), is to abolish the expropriatory and extortionate cigarette taxes. And also gas taxes. And sales taxes of every kind. But then, everyone knows that the government’s power to enforce “public virtue” is a racket in which the government has a vested interest, because it is a power enabler and can line the pockets of the alleged “pillars of society,” the politicians and their activist allies in the private sphere. An unintended consequence is that non-criminal is encouraged to flout the law, as well. So much for “law and order.”

    • joe kulak

      “Mala in se”: wrongs in themselves, morally wrong, such as murder, rape, etc.
      “Mala Prohibita”: conduct prohibited by statute, not inherently evil; other examples would be having a shotgun with a barrel an inch too short, or a magazine that holds “too many bullets”.
      No one should die over the enforcement against a mala prohibita offense, since such a death would be a greater evil than the offense itself.

      • JayWye

        Garner’s death was entirely due to his poor health and trying to resist arrest. That is FACT.

  • Justactsplease

    There is no proof that the very sad death of Mr. Garner had a racial component.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    For those who are interested in the nanny-state criminalization of victimless crime and this case, there is an interesting article on National Review:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394022/yes-stupid-laws-help-kill-people-david-harsanyi

    • JayWye

      they should also read the “Jack Dunphy” article about Garner’s arrest.

  • tagalog

    I don’t think Factor 11, the claim that the person who videoed the takedown of Eric Garner later got into trouble with the law on an unrelated matter, is all that relevant to the issues at hand in the Garner matter.

  • PouponMarx

    The “choke hold killed him has taken on the life of the modern “narrative”, which by definition gets repeated now matter what facts or evidence emerge. How can a legal maneuver in wrestling be the vehicle of “murder” or “negligent homicide?

  • joe kulak

    All of the above may well be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that a man died for selling cigarettes. Wouldn’t a ticket (a citation) have been more appropriate? Imagine if 5 or 6 officers awaited you for parking after the meter expires, and informed you that you were under arrest for illegal parking, then gave you the choice of putting your arms behind you to be handcuffed or being wrestled to the ground while being choked (I’ve seen the video — a choke hold was used) — you think you wouldn’t protest?
    I’m sure the cops were following their training and I doubt any of them intended to kill Mr. Garner, but he’s still dead and the nature of his crime was minor.

    • JayWye

      No,he did NOT “die for selling cigs”,he died because he RESISTED ARREST and wasn’t healthy enough for the exertion.

  • PouponMarx

    Tranquilizer dart? If they would have used a taser on him, it would have probably killed him, given his multitude of diseases.

    How about gaucho boleros? Cowboy lasso? Mace?

    How about a conference call with Eric Holder?

    As a knowledgeable person wrote, cops don’t make the laws, or get to choose which ones to enforce (most of the time).

    • JayWye

      use of ANY drug requires careful calibration for dosage,and there’s NO way of knowing if someone has an allergic reaction to the drug,or an unusual tolerance,as many drug users have.

      • PouponMarx

        My point. If you resist arrest, things can happen that are unprepared for. Police are the hands and arms, the brain and guiding authority tell them what to do. A lot of cops are caught between Liberal/Marxist judges, sycophant political police chiefs, and the rotten politicos of the Left.

  • http://www.amren.com/ Berserker

    Garner did not submit to the commands of the officers and he was punished for it. During the penalty phase of his arrest, he died.

    A choke hold can be used to subdue a suspect, but the officer does not necessarily have to choke a recipient unconscious to establish control. Officers (too many times) apply a choke hold very cavalierly.

    The supervisor and the officer applying the choke are guilty.

    #manslaughter.

  • tickletik

    Good article. I have no problem with the police officer who ended up killing this man. Nor do I have a problem with Garner. The problem is that the violation he was arrested for should NEVER HAVE BEEN A VIOLATION.

    Someone else put it very well “whenever you pass a law or seek to pass a law, imagine killing someone else for violating that law”. Because that is exactly what it means to enforce a law. And you MUST enforce all your laws, because to do otherwise wrecks the basis for all law. Either you enforce it or take it off the books.

    Garner was killed by a police officer because a pack of reckless self righteous fools thought it would be a good idea to pass a law against selling cigarettes. But the officer, Daniel Pantaleo could have just as easily been killed. Or crippled, or traumatized if Garner had made a more dedicated attempt to kill him.

    As it is, this is something that is going to follow around Officer Pantaleo for the rest of his life. And why? It’s not as if Officer Pantaleo was the moron who came up with the idea of banning loosies.

    there is something very sick and hate filled about a society that seeks every opportunity to stamp on men, or that regards their lives as expendable.

  • Demopublicrat

    “Much has been made of the fact that the use of chokeholds by police is prohibited in New York City. But officers reportedly still use them. Between 2009 and mid-2014, the Civilian Complaint Review Board received 1,128 chokehold allegations.”
    Everyone else does it, it’s ok then.

    • JayWye

      “allegations” is the key word.
      naturally,people resisting arrest are going to -claim- they were put in a chokehold. Even if it was only a neck takedown. no actual choking.

      • Demopublicrat

        Never mind video evidence.

  • JayWye

    I agreed with you up to the point of “police went ‘ape’ on him”.
    and the Grand Jury was totally appropriate.

    Taser or pepper spray also would have likely killed him.

    I -do- believe police are partly responsible for not sitting him upright after they had him cuffed.

  • Les K

    “Garner did not die at the scene of the confrontation. He suffered
    cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was
    pronounced dead about an hour later.”

    This statement is false. Have you noticed how the video’s when shown now have the face of Garner blurred out, or masked. Why? Everyone knows who he is and what happened so why blur the face?
    Because he was already dead. Find a copy of the video of when they put him on the gurney, and you can tell by his eyes he was already dead. It is not beyond both police and EMS to lie about this.

    Years ago, working in a department store, a man walked onto an escalator in the store, had a heart attack, and died before reaching the top. EMS came and worked on him for almost an hour in the store to give the perception to people around he was still alive. Same thing happened at a Macy’s earlier this week. A woman had a heart attack and fell out of her wheelchair.

    Rather than upset people standing around watching, they will tell you “He’s breathing” as one officer/EMS said in the video. But it was clear by his eyes rolled back in his head, he was dead before they put him on the gurney.

  • Duddioman

    I had a heart attack 5 years ago at work, leading to emergency triple-bypass surgery that saved my life. I had no idea it was a heart attack until afterwards. All I knew is that I couldn’t catch my breath, & I was a little dizzy. I was able to sit and relax, someone gave me an aspirin, and they rushed me to the hospital.

    If I had six cops on top of me, one with his knee on my head when I went into cardiac arrest, my heart rate would have spiked and I would most likely be dead. It is heartbreaking to watch Eric Garner say, “I can’t breathe…” and when he says it he is not resisting, his palm is up, and his eyes are glazing. I don’t think Eric garner was murdered, but I think it was negligence on the part of the police to not get him help sooner, or back off a bit when he complained of losing his breath.

    What is absolutely criminal is that the city of NY has made selling loose cigarettes an arrestable offense. Samuel freakin Adams would be losing his $hit if he saw the world we live in today. Eric Garner is dead because of the nanny state in NY, and it is a tragedy.

  • duder1897

    He died because he was obese. Period.

  • frodo

    What is the relevance of 11 to the video or the event?

    Why is Garner’s arrest history relevant to the one that led to his death?

    5 and 6 also have dubious relevance, since the ME did say that the proximate cause of death was the chokehold.

  • bacchys

    There is plenty of doubt Garner was resisting arrest for illegally selling cigarettes. The NYPD didn’t come up with that excuse until the day after, and they have yet to produce any evidence to justify the arrests.

  • mybuddyrobin

    so apparently this post is silencing voices. I neither cursed, attacked nor slandered another person…merely asked lordhelmet “Are you a child? Just wondering… your comments are pretty sophomoric and petty. jus’ sayin.”

    ahhh freedom of speech, eh?! for what only the ignorant and bigots?