Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ferguson MO 2.0 - No indictment in Eric Garner case...

I'll answer the GD question: No, he wasn't.

But the glaring point is 20-20 hindsight doesn't count. Did the officers fail to use their department issued crystal balls or truth meters to ascertain whether a 30+ count petty criminal was telling the truth this time?

what bothers me isn't the choke hold, its the man telling them he can't breathe - like 9 times?

at what point do, you know, actually care that the guy might be in distress and its more important that he live than it is to keep your knee on his neck?

if there was video of me - not as a cop but as a man, lets say Garner was threatening me - not life threatening but general mouthing off and I made the decision to take him down, I had him subdued - and he told me 9 times he couldn't breathe - my ass would be in jail.

and throw in on top of it, there is a police policy against a choke hold or attempting to use a choke hold.

I think this cop needs to go to trial. I didn't think that about Wilson or George Zimmerman

also, I don't claim to be an expert on grand jury's but I can tell you that if you don't have a strong willed foreman on the jury or a group of people willing to confront authority, then they are mostly a rubber stamp for whatever the D.A. is pitching - innocent or guilty.

I can remember my time on the grand jury

A junkie showed up at a guys house - the guy was home, minding his own business and the junkie, who didn't have the ability to drive downtown to get his heroin fix, convinced the guy to take him downtown and get him heroin from his supplier (the guy sold heroin but didn't have any)

So he gets him his heroin, the guy and junkie go back to his house, and the guy, the junkie and his wife all shoot up. The next morning the guy and his wife wake up to find the junkie dead on their floor.

And our job on the grand jury was to indict this junkie for murder.

Well we objected almost unanimously to indicting this guy because we felt the junkie was responsible for his own death, so we voted no.

We brought the D.A back into the room and told him and he talked some more to us about how the dealer supplied the heroin and took it upon himself to get heroin for the junkie , to think it over again...so we met again, talked about how were were comfortable with the guy getting indicting for selling heroin but still balked at the murder charge (maybe it was manslaughter, I really can't remember now).

So we bring the D.A. back in and tell him and he just unloads on us, tells us we don't understand the law and we can just indict on intent to sell because that would also mean he was culpable in the junkies death and we were ignoring the law as it was explained to us. I wouldn't call it angry, but clearly he was exercising his power in the room.

So eventually he wore us down and we indicted the guy for all the counts they wanted.

After that, we have maybe 5 or 6 more cases that we didn't really think the charges reflected the actions, but none of us wanted to go thru the browbeating by the D.A. again.

That's why I say unless you have a strong willed foreman or people willing to confront authority, they are a rubber stamp for what the D.A is pitching.

The question was answered, you coward. When you voted the first time, as you said you did, then your job on the GJ was over - whether you think you voted right/wrong/otherwise afterward is immaterial.

That you went back - TWICE - shows cowardice and a miscarriage of justice.

That's pretty damned clear to everyone except you, because you can't admit to yourself that you are a coward and committed a miscarriage of justice due to your cowardice.

A man with 31 prior arrests is dead, let us all rejoice.

Too many people have feelings instead of a brain.

I agree with this. Not in whole but in general.

When the man uttered "I can't breathe" nine times (I heard 11 times on the Kelly File last night) that's where I have a problem.

When LE decides to arrest, subdue, and restrain a person they take away all rights to self defense. When you take that right away you then take responsibility for the person's welfare.

There is and should be the obligation of an arresting officer(s) to insure that no harm comes to someone once they are subdued and restrained. They should have cuffed him and then sat him up so he could breathe.

If the cops would have made an effort to render aid, help the man breath, and he still died ... I wouldn't have a problem with it.

yep, thank god we ridded the streets of those black market cigarette sellers. The world is a better place

ok I'm a coward,

still waiting for the yes or no.

I have a feeling that if you're sympathetic toward very many 350 pound arrest resistors you're going to get hurt sooner than later.

I know I can't be a policeman. If I have to tangle with someone I can't have my rules of engagement dictated by considerations other than prevailing in the altercation.

So you pit no fault on the suspect for resisting? It was solely the cop's fault for arresting him that he died?

no, I think he should have been more compliant, but the guy wasn't taking swings at cops, he was just basically in a keep your hands off me, he wasn't armed, he wasn't telling them he was going to kick their ass - he just wanted to be left the "f" alone - and there were what? 4 cops there?

As I said, where I take exception to this is when he was saying he can't breath. At that point, I believe you had to address that situation.

We can talk about safety concerns of the police but what is your job? Isn't protection extending to the person in custody from their own demise?

Yep, you're an idiot.

You voted, the first time. That's what you should have done and you should have stuck with it. Either you were an idiot with your vote, then, or not. You were, and remain, a coward in every action after that.

There's your "yes/no".

He should have been shot after the 3rd one, and saved us all the other 28, plus him yelling I can't breeve.

too funny

for someone so big on declaration you can't even answer the question - I won't ask any more. Its more important to you to throw out insults - I get it.

There were a lot of things that were done wrong from a policy/administrative point of view. And that video is never going to be used as a demonstration for using a level of force that is consummate to the threat.

But that is not what the Grand Jury is there to determine. They are there to determine if a criminal prosecution should be sought.

It is very clear that the case was not prosecutable in the state of NY.




Travis