BREAKING: No Charges in Eric Garner Chokehold Case for Officer

a reply to: FraggleRock

It actually does. He broke a law by selling loose cigarettes and then resisted arrest which is an offense.
The police were well within their rights to arrest him, particularly as he was resisting.

Also, a RNC is not considered 'deadly force' even though it is dangerous; similar to a taser.

a reply to: gorsestar

So you think that his motive was to murder a black man, on camera and then show off?

a reply to: Collateral

I'm not talking about a right to arrest him. I'm talking about them killing him which isn't justified simply because he sold some cigarettes and resisted.

If it's not considered deadly force than what Eric Garner did in the video wasn't resisting but rather he was objecting to arrest.

a reply to: FraggleRock

FFS as if they were trying to kill him.

Objecting to arrest is the same as resisting arrest.

a reply to: TinFoilHat84

I have been saying this for awhile now!

Our police force that has been amped up since 9/11 will go down in history as the Gestapo of the 2000's

Thank you for validating my view and speaking for the average European!

How anyone can not see it for what it is makes me feel like a German who was trying to warn people in 1935!

originally posted by: Collateral
a reply to: gorsestar

So you think that his motive was to murder a black man, on camera and then show off?

I can't possibly ascertain that from the video.

Consider his history of abuse on the job, both resulting in no punishment, and the successful submission of the suspect using a "wrestling move" (In his own words).

I firmly believe that the officer felt he had gotten away again under the veil of public service.

The smile and wave at the camera was the crowning of a marked psychopath! (Is that a contrite mannerisms in your opinion?)

a reply to: gorsestar

Does he have a history of misconduct or discrimination?

a reply to: Collateral

You're implying discrimination and I'm stating misconduct.

Answer my question: Does the officers immediate behavior suggest that he was remorseful about killing someone? (Or that he even gave a s***)

a reply to: gorsestar

So, does he have a history or misconduct?

Was he aware that the victim was deceased?

a reply to: Collateral
Yes..
www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: greydaze

Alleged and dismissed.

Misconduct allegations against city police officers filed with the Civilian Complaint Review Board dropped to 11,501 in 2013, the lowest total in a decade, the agency's data shows. NYPD currently has approximately 34,500 uniformed officers. The CCRB received 2,739 complaints during the first six months of this year, a 7% increase from the same period of 2013, the data shows.

originally posted by: Collateral
a reply to: greydaze

Alleged and dismissed.

That's false.

One was settled for $30,000 and the other is ongoing.

Daniel pantaleo has violated the rights of numerous individuals and showed callousness in Mr Garners death yet you are bending over backwards to defend him.

originally posted by: Collateral
FFS as if they were trying to kill him.

Objecting to arrest is the same as resisting arrest.

You wanted to play semantics so I played.

Sorry but I consider something as deadly force if it leads to death.

a reply to: gorsestar

Unlike you, I am searching for cold hard facts, rather than going along with media based public opinion in the assumption of guilty before proven innocent.

Charges against Collins and Rice, who said they had done nothing wrong, ultimately were dismissed and sealed. The city settled their lawsuit last year, court records show.

a reply to: Collateral

What facts have you brought forth that we don't already know? You're constructing the evidence in a way to fit you're law enforcement affinity. Additionally, you suggested a racial motivation.

a reply to: FraggleRock

Thats great. What you consider deadly force and what the law considers deadly force are two different things. In this case, your opinion on what constitutes deadly force is irrelevant.

a reply to: gorsestar

Im not trying to bring in any new facts, rather assessing the actual facts based on law and reality.

You arent even using evidence, you are just formulating an opinion based on popular perception.

a reply to: Collateral

I'm well aware that my opinion doesn't dictate law. Doesn't mean I can't share it and hope that somehow we can change the law. So in a discussion where we are all sharing facts and opinions on facts my opinion is far from irrelevant.

This officer killed a man and got away with it. Any law that allows that is a broken law.

a reply to: FraggleRock

I am not suggesting that your opinion is irrelevant as you well know, however in the context of the legality of the situation, it is irrelevant.

If a police officer killed a bank robber, should he be charged with murder?