No indictment in Eric Garner Death

<p>The two cases are diametrically opposite. In ferguson, the police officer reasonably believed himself to be in danger, and the evidence said he was. Here, an officer with a history of abuse killed someone who posed no threat to anyone like a dog in the street. As Fox News just said, “lady justice is crying tonight.” And she is. As am I.</p>

<p>The thing I can’t get past is the other officers and the EMTs who didn’t even try to help. WHO does that?</p>

<p>I am so angry that I am in tears! What do I tell my son? Many of you ask why we were so upset about Mike Brown, and this is why. I dont know if Wilson was guilty or not, but we just want a fair process. We arent even asking for a “not guilty”, just a damn indictment, but we cant even get that. For the person that asked about John Crawford, THERE WAS NO INDICTMENT! </p>

<p>I want to also know when will these folks that incite panic, ie the caller about John Crawford, be held accountable? Not only do I have to worry about being profiled by some police, we have to be worried about being profiled by other customers, etc. And this one takes the cake! Someone called the police because a Black man in Michigan was WALKING WITH HIS HANDS IN HIS POCKETS! I give up</p>

<p><a href=“Police state_ Why are your hands in your pockets_ - YouTube”>Police state_ Why are your hands in your pockets_ - YouTube;

<p>So much for cameras, there was in Walmart for John Crawford, and for Eric Garner, and we still got nothing.</p>

<p>Well, I have to say I’m shocked by this outcome, though God only knows why. I guess I thought the video speaks for itself, but clearly I was wrong in believing this man’s life would mean anything to those with the power to indict the police officers involved in this incident. Very wrong indeed. What message does this decision send to black males in this country? It says the police can do anything at all to you and may not be held responsible for your injury or death. Even if they’re caught on camera, killing you in real time. Even if you do not resist arrest. Even after you have been utterly subdued. Even if you beg to be allowed to breathe. </p>

<p>Body cameras on police officers? Will it even make a difference? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Could the problem be that the second part of your statement is not shared by everyone. You believe that the evidence was overwhelming to indict the officer in Ferguson. Others might have had to disagree. </p>

<p>I am shocked and heartbroken, poetsheart. I would have sworn there could be no outcome other than indictment and conviction. I do not understand at all. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nice try, but for the above to be true, we would have to have different opinions on the … second case. Your “beef” is that I do not agree with your position on the Ferguson case. So, let me rephrase that for you: </p>

<p>“But not surprisingly, I also disagree with your opinion about the similarity of the two cases.” </p>

<p>The two cases are completely different, and so it is the evidence we have been able to see. But I am happy to disagree with that, and have no need to convince you! </p>

<p>In the meantime, all I can say is that I do not believe that justice was served in the second case. All that is needed is credible evidence, and the second case had plenty of it. </p>

<p>Sorry! </p>

<p>zoosermom - I posted on the other thread about a case in my city where the grand jury did not indict because they decided that the officer reasonably believed himself to be in danger. You can go over there and watch the video and decide for yourself if his stated fear was “reasonable” but it worries me that an officer’s testimony that he felt like he was in danger is enough to walk free even when video evidence clearly shows that the fear was completely unfounded.</p>

<p>Jumping for a moment to the Cleveland case, the 911 caller did say that the gun might not be real but he also estimated the boys age as about 20. It’s like playing a game if telephone with faulty information exchange exacerbated by bias. The police roll in looking for a 20 year old suspect who is waving a gun around at a crowded park and pointing it at people. They find a 12 year old boy with a toy gun in a snowy, deserted park. Maybe there were people there before and they all cleared out. Wouldn’t that mean that they weren’t in danger, though, and a more measured approach could have been taken? What if instead of being off by 8 years on age the kid was a different race or gender? What if they found a 12 year old white kid with red hair sitting there in the picnic shelter with his toy gun. Would they have killed him in under 2 seconds, had a stand off, or called his mother? I could be wrong but I think they would have at least hesitated and reconsidered.</p>

<p>In these three cases people can say that one was killed for assaulting an officer, one was killed for resisting arrest and one was killed for being stupid or gangsta enough to take the orange cap off his airsoft gun. To me the link and the thing that is most worrisome is that the officers involved seemed to have very little regard for the life of the person who was killed. It doesn’t seem to bother them. They are quick to shoot, choke, slam etc and don’t seem particularly rattled. It does feel to me like they view the lives of men of color as being less valuable - like they aren’t really people with families and lives that matter. </p>

<p>xiggi, quit putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said the evidence was “overwhelming” to indict Darren Wilson. </p>

<p>After today’s decision–and going back and reading about John Crawford–I am 100% convinced that the system is broken beyond repair. When a medical examiner can declare a man’s death a homicide, but a grand jury decides there is no probable cause to even charge the officer that choked the life out of him on camera, something is very, very wrong.</p>

<p>And oh, yeah–partyof5 has to worry about what this means for her son, but I don’t. Because my son has blond hair and blue eyes and could walk down the street holding an AK-47 and posturing like a big tough guy but no one would feel “threatened.”</p>

<p>Xiggi, My disagreement with you is that I do not believe the cases are different. But you do, correct? </p>

<p>Okay, Sally. I’ll stop reading your statements too literally. Forgive me for having misread the words “The parallel is that prosecutors don’t want to indict cops, even when the evidence is overwhelming that they should” and assumed that you were talking about the Ferguson case. I guess there must other generic cases. </p>

<p>My bad!</p>

<p>Saintfan, there was no video in ferguson, but the forensic evidence showed that Michael brown was the aggressor. On Staten Island, there was video which clearly showed that Eric Garner was not dangerous to the officer. I hate to generalize about people, but the officer here is totally typical of the mentality of the area that he comes from. They don’t generally kill other people, but these are the people who will key your car or flatten your tires if you park in front of their houses. The kind of people who are us against them versus everyone who isn’t exactly like them. They are always at war. </p>

<p>The only surprise here is that some people are surprised that the cop in the Garner case wasn’t indicted. Cops are NEVER indicted for killing people. Cops can kill black or brown people with impunity. They can kill white people with impunity too, but they don’t do that as often. </p>

<p>Pretty much, I agree with this. I do wish the racial part was not the only part people are seeing, though. Also, on CNN this morning Charles Barkley said he didn’t want an indictment because he didn’t think the cop meant to kill Eric Garner. That’s the only defense I’ve heard so far, but there it is. Well, that and people arguing about chokehold vs. headlock and what’s okay and what’s not.</p>

<p>Interesting . . . Rand Paul is viewing this death as a result of bad tax law and a failure of politicians in enacting unfair taxes and instructing the police to enforce them. That is a perspective that never occurred to me. </p>

<p>Bring in the tea party!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For the love of god. Just stop making assumptions, or read each passage twice or something.</p>

<p>Well, it is ludicrous that marijuana is a ticket able offense but Eric Garner was going to be arrested for cigarettes. Loosies are sold everywhere here because the price of cigarettes is insane. Talk about punitive taxarion</p>

<p>That was Paul’s talking point. The police only killed him because of punitive tax policies. </p>

<p>marie, I too would like to see something other than the “racial part.”</p>

<p>I don’t really care what Charles Barkley says, but I have a hard time believing that cop didn’t mean to kill Eric Garner. I’m pretty sure when someone says “I can’t breathe!” you stop what you are doing that is keeping them from breathing.</p>

<p>Sally, you would have to see these people to believe them. It is like a whole different world. Back in the spring, I was on my express bus line going home from work. There are lines that wait together for different buses, one of which goes to the officer’s neighborhood. On that night, I saw a black man get on that bus. In 30 years of commuting I had never seen a black man on that bus before. I turned to my friend and said “that is a brave soul.” Which he was, and which my friend understood immediately. Personally, I wonder how people from certain areas get assigned to patrol in certain areas. Seems like asking for trouble.</p>

<p>I listened to the 911 call about the Cleveland killing. I didn’t hear anything about the kid being 20 from the caller. Maybe I missed it. </p>

<p>Also, the tone of the call was not panicked. It was very much the tone you or I would take to alert the police about a situation that should be dealt with promptly, but that was probably not dangerous: *listen, this kid is waving around a probably fake gun, you should come and give him a talking-to, *was the subtext I heard. Not, there’s a dangerous maniac with a gun, you should shoot him less than two seconds after you get out of the squad car.</p>

<p>I would hate to have been the concerned citizen who called 911 about that little boy. </p>