NYPD Officer Who Fatally Choked Eric Garner Wasn't Indicted, Man Who Filmed the Incident Was

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not that I am aware of.

He was heading across the street to the police station.

SOOOO glad Eric Garner's tragic murder was videotaped!

Shame the taper got arrested. Thank God for our 2nd Amendment!
U.S. citizens are often armed, permit or not. Probably the gun
charge won't amount to very much.

As an ex-smoker, I always felt strongly that cigarettes should be
available for sale in a three-pack, for quitters trying to stop, and
not have to buy a whole pack of 20. So in my op- Eric Garner
wasn't breaking much of a law.

Reading this thread has shown me posts for, and against the
cops, good posting everyone. Staying on topic- I don't know
what the probable cause was, or the warrant written for
his arrest; his gun, or some kind of retribution for his video.
Either way, the cops just didn't come across real well.

Had this video NOT come out on the news, would 2 NYPD
officers still have been executed sitting in their car, for what
the killer clearly stated was a revenge murder?

He comitted suicide, so no more will be known... But I
strongly believe they wouldn't, had the cops not murdered
Eric Garner. I think the video is worth a million words.
Eric's hands were up as high as big arms go- why the hell
did that little cop grab him around the neck from behind?

A clear violation of rights, I perceive. I applaud the taper
for filming the incident, and the media for getting it out.

I hope you can beleive me when I say- I am not against the
cops; I am for reasonable use of force. But illegal TOBACCO
sales? Really? My God man, come on, that's not reasonable.

a reply to: screwey

On the gun issue he was not permitted to have one. He tried passing the gun off to another person, who was also arrested and charge.

What's ignored is the fact the arrest of this guy came a day or so after the event and not at the same time. The guy has a criminal record which can prevent a person from possessing a firearm. Businesses called the police because he was illegally selling cigarettes in front of the businesses who sell the same and how paid taxes to do so. The guy was not a stranger to law enforcement.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for info, X.

Many, many times in recent history people who were
NOT legally allowed firearms end up with them anyway.
I kinda believe either everyone has one; or no-one has
one. Until guns are somehow dealt with, I'm afraid the
street market will continue to thrive.

I say the cops wouldn't have persued him on any charge
had he not let his now famous video out for all to see.

These officers must have known that their actions would
create a firestorm among the public because of it. His
arrest I see as pure power trip over him. I still find it hard
to believe the chokehold cop was not indicted based on
the video evidence of a totally unecessary murder.

If you or I grabbed someone from behind like that, we
would be sitting in jail awaiting murder charges.

a reply to: screwey

Reference the initial suspect.

* - There was more than one officer present.
* - Last I saw the suspect was known for resisting arrest (which means the guy can be flagged in the system with a caution indicator letting law enforcement know that he has fought with police in the past).
* - he was ordered several times to comply and failed to do so.

The suspect knew they were cops and why they were there since he has been arrested for the same thing prior.



Reference the suspect who took the video.

The video and who took it and its release I don't think are connected as fit for tat. The location of the gun incident was several blocks away and the guy with the gun not only was seen with it and passing it off he has been caught with one before.

Regardless of what people think of law enforcement the proper setting to challenge their actions is in court and not fighting with them in the street.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Great points.

And although Eric Garner may not have complied with
exact orders, still he was not trying to hurt any of the
officers, or, according to the video, offering any type
of physical resistance, or attempting to elude.

My point is- that chokehold cop went out of control,
obviously, and chose to use violence on a citizen,
albeit a known repeat offender, when violence was
NOT needed.

And also, I agree with you that battles should be fought
in court, not the street. I apologize for my ignorance in
the gun charge case that came later against the taper. I
missed that, I guess. I still can not imagine 2 NYPD cops
getting murdered in the wake of incidents like these.

My head hangs low today.

a reply to: screwey

You made an honest effort to engage in debate while seeking facts, regardless of where those facts lead so no apologies necessary. Its not a perfect system and it has its flaws. The laws and rulings that apply to law enforcement are not well understood and as such it can lead to wrong conclusions as well as the appearance of preferential treatment.

One of the main issues I see when it comes to law enforcement and race is the media failing to provide context and / or conveniently leaving out details that lead to an improper conclusion. I have been asked several times if I have issues with minorities because of how I provide information to dispatch. Interestingly enough the questions revolve around medical calls / car accidents.

When giving a medical report to my dispatch I rely on my police training. That means out of habit I also provide the race of the individual. It has no bearing on any info I'm reporting and sounds unusual to those listening in. Its not intended to be racist however to a casual observer / someone listening it can come across as such.

A cop jumping to a conclusion about race is just as bad as a person jumping to conclusions about police. Get all the facts first and go from there.

That road must run all directions.

If someone is failing to do that one should ask the question why? Did they truly miss it or are they intentionally ignoring it and what impact does the info have on the situation.

Anyways sorry for sounding preachy.. just my opinion and 2 cents.

police ought to be given more athority against criminals.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Star!

No no, not preachy at all. I can appreciate your insight as
an LEO. Very interesting. Sounds like you have a good head
on your shoulders, keep up the good work.

I'm gonna date myself here, a little bit, but I need to give
a quick insight of my own- when I was a kid, cops were
still very much "Barney Fife"... no disrespect.

What I mean is, they were extremely sensitive to people's
rights, and almost stand-offish in their approach. You could
talk with them easily, and they stood back, listening to you.
They didn't have much equipment, just the six-shooter and
some hardly used cuffs. They were not aggressive at all.

Flash-forward to today- Oh my God! Cops are well equip'd,
more from military training, barking orders, advancing like
crazy towards people, using 'swarm' technique to subdue
suspects, seemingly letting anger lead, and in general, act-
ing more like tyrants than mediators!

Sorry, back to topic-we are no longer in the era of the cop
being like a casual listener who understands individual problems,
and grants you some love & companionship... NO NO, maybe
over the years there's been too much hostility towards the
man in blue, too, which has caused this major transformation.

LOL, can I quote Rodney King? "Can we all just get along?"

a reply to: screwey

Your fine and I understand what you are saying. I have stated many times in many threads that the only way to fix these issues is by both sides communicating. It does not mean either side has to agree with the other however it may lead to a better understanding of why some things occur.

The us verse them mentality runs in both directions which is why it will take both sides to get the ball rolling to start fixing things. I always make this argument and almost always I get attacked for it but here it is anyways. In order to understand law enforcement actions people must understand the laws and rulings for it. People seem to have a mindset where they are afraid to know the law because they think they have to accept it.

My argument has always been for civilians to know the law. By doing this not only does it give insight into law enforcement but will also allow the person to identify where they think the problem is and start working on ways to fix it. They don't want to do this though based on my experience.

The laws and court rulings are in fact the playbook for law enforcement so I fail to see the logic in people refusing to read that playbook in order to get the inside edge and make the changes they think could resolve these issues.

As for Rodney King a question -
Have you ever scene the entire video or read the reports on that incident?

The criminal accusations against the officers had nothing to do with the level and type of force applied. The problem was when several of the officers brought their batons / asp over the head to deliver strikes. The lead up to that incident was ignored by media, where King was throwing the officers around as if they were rag dolls.

I have had the unique experience of fighting with a person high on pcp. In that instance it took 2 agencies and about a dozen officers to gain control of the guy. Round 2 came at the hospital. People seem to ignore the fact that persons under the influence can and do register pain differently than that of a person not under the influence.

A normal person who is hit with a baton in the arm will register pain.
A person on pcp (or other drugs) who is hit with a baton can register the pain as a color or smell - anything but pain. It doesn't register normally.

Do we live in mayberry? Nope.

However we can try to work back in that direction. However it will require both sides to work for a common goal.

That path starts with facts and a willingness to understand, regardless if a person agrees with whats being stated (if that makes sense).

a reply to: Xcathdra

Another star!

Yeah, you hit a nail on the head- KNOWLEDGE of the law,
and/or ignorance of it is kinda at the heart of much of
the problems in our communities.

I happened to be in court tues, hoping to see an old
buddy who is locked up, but while waiting, I heard a
couple cases. One small Mexican man, oh, maybe in his
50's, had been in for 183 days for sexual battery.

The prostitutor said he was reaching over and fondling his
own daughter while driving her to school ! Over a period
of two years ! She finally told mom, he was arrested...

NOW, they lowered the charge to something else, and he
was being released on 2 yrs felony probation, with sex-
offender status, he was required within 45 days to regstr,
45 days to get mental eval, 45 days for "Cognitive assesmnt"
[ never heard that one ] and pay 2,200 bucks cost . . .And
the pretender was reading from the code-you know-all that
text jargon, page so-and-so, paragraph so-and-so, section
so-and-so, line, whatever,, boy- not many of us are aware
of these codes...we just try to be moral, ya know?

W O W ! I'm sorry, but was I the only one squirming?

Seemed light. His OWN duaghter . My God, man, what about
her? Could she be damaged? Yes. But there was no rape,
thank God. Anyway, I give cops alot of credit, for not giving
in to cave-man impulses, and cracking guys like this over
their pointy little heads !!!!!!!!!!!

The REAL justice comes in lock-up, or jail, or prison alot of
times, though; because I know the guards like to inform the
other inmates about guys like this's charges!

YES, I did eventually see most all the Rodney King vid, he
was thrashing pretty good. But for days all we saw was the
cops going "Planet of the Apes" on him, so impartiality had
already gone by the wayside.

Today, he would get 50,000 volts, right?

a reply to: screwey

The case you described is played out in court rooms on a daily basis. It makes one wonder whats not making the news in terms of criminal trials. While the nation watched the incident in Ferguson and New York there were other incidents where cops were killed that were drowned out by the media coverage in those 2 incidents.

When people discuss law enforcement attitude they fail to understand / see its impact on the officer.

The only time police are called is when a crime occurs. Some of those crimes are ones that will test even the most patient person and send others into the mindset of just how evil some humans can be. The issue that is often times overlooked is the number of these incidents a normal person is exposed to.

Rape, child abuse, domestic violence, etc... People might experience 1 of those in their lifetime. A police Officer though comes into contact with it on a daily basis. Child abuse is bad enough, but working 3 child abuse calls in one day is taxing.

Police can experience several of these incidents in one day where a normal person might once in a lifetime. I don't raise this point to detract from the victims of those crimes. I am just pointing out we deal with people who are having the worst days of their lives and there is only so much we can do about it.


As for Rodney King - no he would not have been given a death penalty since he did not kill anyone. One of the most frustrating parts about being a police officer is how quickly the politicians want any negative media attention off the air as quickly as possible. This leads to governing agencies to offer a settlement without regards to whether or not the officers actions were justified and within state law.

When a person sees a city pay out for law enforcement action, they assume its because the officer is guilty of some crime when in reality its not the case.

That brings us back around to communication being a 2 way street.

To bring it back around to the topic there is a reason use of force is reviewed without the ability to use 20/20 hindsight as a factor. Its what the officer perceived the moment force was used. To try and argue the officer was trying to choke the guy based on video is problematic being people were not there and are seeing the incident after the fact. Just because it looks like one thing does not mean its not something else.

The suspect in this case knew his actions were illegal. He refused to comply with officer commands. The moment he chose to resist by failing to comply is on him.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes. Don't know how you do it, day in and day out...

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for the death penalty with my 50,000 volts
comment, I meant that TODAY, Rodney King would have been
tazered, not beaten.

I heard he got a large settlement, but quickly squandered it.

You're right about unbeleiveable stories going unnoticed by the
media sometimes... In Mar 07, my cousin was abducted and
murdered in Sycamore, Illinois. It devastated my large family.
There was only one brief mention about it on the news...

Her name is: Brigette Ann DeCleene [21]. Her killer was: robert
bevington [63]. He had her, then shot her, then set his place on
fire, and shot himself !

May God Bless and keep her soul.

And also the brave policemen who have died.

Oh man, X, what the world is coming to, huh ? Just gotta keep up
good faith, and hope the "Us vs Them" mentality will not prevail.

Back to the Eric Garner vid- seems like you put his death on himself,
if I understand you correctly. Where as I am in total disagreement
with you on that, respectfully. The chokehold cop was too much.

Shame the videotaper got arrested, but if he did stupid things with
relation to a gun, then he had it coming.

You sound like a good cop, I bet you would NOT have attacked Eric
Garner from behind, right ? Maybe instead, just keep surrounding him,
and trying to communicate further to him, so he would eventually
understand, and be cooperative... no violence needed.

Perhaps if the cop would have pointed the tazer at him,might not
have even needed to fire it...

a reply to: screwey

Sorry for your loss man..

As for keeping the faith -
The police tend to make the news only when it looks like we screwed something up or shoot and kill a person. What doesn't make the news are the thousands of officers across the US who do their job and serve their community. There are plenty of instances where police have bought clothes / food for people having problems.

The most recent was a lady whose family had not eaten in 2 days. She took the last few dollars she had to go buy eggs, only to find out she didn't have enough. She shoved some eggs into her coat, which then busted open and she got caught. Instead of citing her for stealing the officers got her food and other needed items.

Good acts are apparently not news worthy. Constant negative coverage, in my opinion, is also a part of the problem as only one face of law enforcement is shown. Even when news media gets it wrong they rarely ever go back to correct their mistakes.

As for Garner -
I do. He had every opportunity to comply and failed to do so, at which point he was resisting arrest. If a person is having medical issues in the middle of fighting with law enforcement one needs to take into account it might be a lie in order to gain an upper hand in a fight.

What he should have done was to stop all forms of resistance. His medical history / problems were not known until after the fact so we once again arrive back at the 20/20 hindsight issue. The moment he chose to resist an arrest was solely his decision. He should have taken his health issues into account.

Use of a Taser, or any item really, is dependent upon the various state laws, department policies and procedures and court rulings.

I can tell you that the more officers there are present the more requirement on law enforcement to justify there actions. The number of officers can create a situation where a use of deadly force would not be allowed. In this case I am not sure if the officers had tasers or not.

With that being said had tasers been present and used, I can almost guarantee people would still be bitching about an unarmed black man being tased while there were 5 officers present.

The guy was selling loose cigarettes and most people have argued the end results far outweighed the crime. My opinion is the guy resisted arrest over selling loose cigarettes. An action he never should have taken knowing how petty of a crime it was.

If we are to hold the police accountable for their actions then the same standard must be applied to those the police deal with as well.

As for the video taker. He was arrested for breaking the law which in this case is a felony. His arrest, no matter how many people try to argue, is not related to the incident.

RE: The choke hold -
Disagreement is fine so no worries. The only advice I would give is to research what an LVNR (Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint) is. That action is prohibited by NYPD policy, along with many other agencies including one I worked for years ago. If its done correctly the person essentially passes out. Apply the hold to long and you run into issue with blood / oxygen supply to the brain.

I have never seen it result in cardiac arrest though. It goes back to what I was saying about how something looks as opposed to what actually occurs. An LVNR requires specific arm placement.

As for good cop bad cop - I like to think I am a good cop. Guess that's really up to the people I deal with and their thoughts though. I know there are plenty of people on this site who don't care for me. I try to explain this side of the fence and they take it as me defending actions instead of educating on why the action was allowed to occur.

As for coming up behind the individual - it depends on the situation and the demeanor of the person we are dealing with and what their body movements are telegraphing to us. A lot also depends on an officers training, how many officers are present etc. Believe it or not we are trained on how to interact with people when more than one officer is present. We are trained to position ourselves into areas where our actions are not as noticeable to the person we re dealing with. Reactionary gap, offset position, etc etc etc. There is method to the madness and its designed to end a potential confrontation quickly / force appropriate.

While the Supreme Court requires officers to use the least amount of force necessary and to reduce our use of force as the threat diminishes it also recognizes state laws that allow officers to use the next level of force higher than what they are encountering to overcome that resistance.

IE if a person picks up a shovel and comes at me I don't have to engage him with my baton / asp. I can confront him with my duty weapon.


With all this being said its imperative for citizens and the police to communicate with each other.

A quote that I like -