In Eric Garner case, Justice Department declines civil rights charges against New York City police o

the cop should be in jail for murder. the other cops should be in jail for helping murder the guy. there is no justice.

 

They didn't because there wasn't one. Even the DOJ did not bring such a charge.

 

Sure there was justice. The citizen grand jury and the DOJ said no crime or civil rights violation. But give me he proof that the police decided to kill him because he was resisting arrest. That the take down was for the purpose of killing Garner.

 

the doctor who performed the autopsy says he died of an asthma attack

 

Do not commit a crime, do not resist arrest, do not get killed in the process.

Pray tell, why is such a simple concept, ultimately proving to be so difficult for so many to comprehend?

 

Not sure why you are repeating this as I did not claim that there was such a charge. The DOJ did not bring charges against Clapper for lying to congress - ... this does not mean that Clapper did not lie to congress.

Here you claim that because a takedown was "Legal" - what you mean is legally justified - that the force used can not be excessive. Perhaps this is not what you mean - but this is how it reads - this has nothing to do with the DOJ or some Grand Jury.

Just because a takedown is justified - does not mean that excessive force necessarily is warranted.

So while you may think that there is nothing excessive about shooting someone while subdued and in hand cuffs - on the basis that they resisted arrest so they got what they deserved - the courts in general will disagree with you.

 

Everyone gets what you are saying. It is you who does not get simple concepts such as the rule of law principle "The punishment should fit the crime".

Now perhaps you are in favor of a totalitarian police state - and you are welcome to this opinion - but, regardless of what your opinion is - a totalitarian police state is what you are arguing for.

 

Why did the chief executive of NYC, one dem running for their presidential nomination, let the cop off the hook?

 

cause the cop did not kill him, his asthma did.

no asthma...no death.

 

They both claim that the choke hold by the cop killed Eric Garner. No question about it.

 

Killing somebody who posed no thread by applying an illegal technique, and you know it's illegal, and you hear the guy pleading to breath, and yet the choking goes on.... and subsequently the coroners rule that it indeed killed the guy,... that's murder in anybodies book. The US becomes a total joke how they treat their minorities like that. Them folks really do not understand the concept of justice.

The justice in the US is like in the best of corrupt nations.
Money and race mean everything.

 

It has already been proven. In fact it was proven in your claims relating to law enforcement encounters and the justice system with regard to members of the black community being more harshly punished than members of the white community who commit the same offense.

Eric Garner was a convicted felon at the time, with numerous convictions for numerous criminal offenses. Meaning he knew better than anyone, exactly what sort of situation he was entering into when he decided he was going to refuse to comply with a lawful order. He knew he had a significant chance of being killed in response, yet he still chose to go through the decision to resist arrest, despite knowing what the consequences of such could be.

What you are not interested in is the truth. All that holds the interest on the part of yourself is presenting a racial narrative at the expense of the facts.

And yet it is apparently not racist enough to deter illegal aliens from attempting to enter the united states to try and make money.

 

Whose fault is it that Eric Garner had asthma and was physically unfit for strenuous physical activity? A healthier individual would not have died as a result of the take down.

 

If Eric Garner had not been significantly obese, along with heaving heart disease and asthma, being taken down in the manner that he was would not have actually proven fatal.

Do you support the rule of law, or do you not?

 

The above does not respond to what is stated in my post.


You said "Do not commit a crime, do not resist arrest, do not get killed in the process". This is apologizing for any and all excessive use of force. Your response is simply "if they didn't commit the crime they would not have been killed".

1) This is an apology for a totalitarian police state where anything the police do is justified on the basis of "the person was breaking the law".
2) I do not think you understand what the rule of law is - The rule of law does not claim that any police action is justified on the basis of the person breaking the law. It claims the contrary - The Rule of Law states that the Punishment is to fit the crime.

 

The coroners both said that the choke hold is what killed Garner as a primary reason. You defy the established truth here, to pin the blame on the victim. How very low of you.

 

I asked you to go prove that Eric Garner knew this. Have people been strangled before in brought daylight by cops before in the US as for something little as not paying taxes? And the answer to that is that this cop is unique with executing his victim. So Eric could not know.

The truth is what 2 coroners have said about it. And YOU are not interested in that, because it pins the blame on the cop.

 

When an individual dismisses all of the warnings about the dangers involved, and chooses to hop over the fence at the local zoo to pet the tiger, it is not the fault of the tiger that the individual gets mauled and/or killed.

Eric Garner made his decisions, and as a result experienced the consequences of such.

 

Indeed so. A great many individuals have been killed for not paying taxes that they owe the government.

Eric Garner, as a black male individual, had every reason to know that law enforcement officers are predisposed towards killing individuals such as himself.

The findings of the coroners were overruled by the autopsy that found death was caused by asthma rather than the choke hold.

 

I asked you to go prove that Eric Garner knew this. Have people been strangled before in brought daylight by cops before in the US as for something little as not paying taxes? And the answer to that is that this cop is unique with executing his victim. So Eric could not know.

Negative. The cop made a decisions out of his own free decision to use an illegal technique. And even when Garner requested to breath, the cop cold heatedly denied it, and went on choking till he died because of it. In fact the cop could have stopped this at any moment, but he choose to murder him. And you defend this thug. You never have argued against the fact that the cop did this out of his own free will, that it was illegal for him to do so, and that he could have stopped this at any given time. The reasons why the cop is to blame.

 

I am not seeing any prove of that.

I asked you to go prove that Eric Garner knew this. Have people been strangled before in brought daylight by cops before in the US as for something little as not paying taxes? And the answer to that is that this cop is unique with executing his victim. So Eric could not know.

Both coroners blame the cop. Period. And you defy these facts that have been established in order to pin the blame on the victim. How very low of you.

 

Non-sequinter noted.

So said the grand jury and the DOJ.

It wasn't excessive as I have already noted.

I will tell you what I think so that you don't blatantly misrepresent it. There were no shots fired here Garner died on the way to the hospital of cardiac arrest.

 

What a coincidence to be had. No proof has been presented to show that Eric Garner was doing nothing wrong at the time of his death. Just as no proof has been presented to show the supposed choke hold killed him right on the spot.

 

Wires are crossed here - either one is talking the general case - or this specific case. In the general case someone breaking the law does not necessarily justify any and all use of force. My take on your previous comments was that you were claiming that it did. That is what I was referring to as the non sequitur.

In this specific case there is the question of whether or not the force used was justified - this is a different question than the above. The DOJ commentary in the specific case has nothing to do with the general case.

I did not follow the proceedings of this specific case that closely but wasn't the jury asked to rule on whether or not it was murder rather than whether or not it was excessive force or were both questions addressed ?

 

Negative. You basically claimed that he knew that he was going to be killed and so it's his own fault. And you failed to prove it. You're deflecting now.

The choke hold did kill him. So says 2 coroners who looked at it. And you refuse to accept this reality and twist around this as if it is open for debate. While it's a fact.

You also twist around and ignore that:
- Eric wasn't threatening anybody
- So the police weren't pressured into doing anything
- The cops were trained and so knew beforehand that the choke hold was illegal
- The victim complained he couldn't breathe, and the cop just went on choking him
- The cop could have stopped his illegal technique at any given moment without any consequence.