No indictment in Eric Garner Death

<p>Now, THIS is a travesty of justice.</p>

<p>I have an opposite view of the Brown case and the Garner case to you, cptofthehouse. That is, I think both cases illuminate the way we think about police use of force against black suspects.</p>

<p>“If you can’t say No, you can’t say Yes.” That’s what we say about consent in rape cases: If the victim could not have refused consent, because for example she was unconscious or drugged or a slave, then equally, nothing she does or doesn’t do can be construed as consent. She can’t consent if she couldn’t have refused.</p>

<p>The same applies to grand juries deciding whether to indict police officers who killed black people. People who defend the Brown decision say, sometimes officers do kill black suspects unjustifiably, but the Officer Wilson doesn’t fall in that class. They say we should trust the process, trust the prosecutor and the grand jury to have gotten the right result. But we see, with the Garner case, that we can’t trust the process, that even in a most egregious, obvious case of misconduct, of, indeed, murder, the grand jury refused to indict. </p>

<p>If a grand jury can’t indict when they have video and audio of the murder, if they can’t say, No, this killing was justified, then they can’t say Yes, this other killing was justified. If they can’t say the Garner killing was murder, they can’t say the Brown killing was OK. If they can’t say No, they can’t say Yes.</p>

<p>Partyof5, I appreciate the thanks, but also wanted you to know that it is something we should expect of all of us- to listen with an open mind. Although I don’t know what it is like to be African American, I think we are all capable of empathy. Everyone has felt hurt at some point and so, while we may not have the same experiences, we can at least listen to each other and try to undertand.</p>

<p>Sorry for the duplicate posts, and I hope a mod can delete them. CC was telling me the post didn’t post.</p>

<p>I heard on the radio today that the Justice Dept has said that the Cleveland Police Dept “systematically engages in excessive force against civilians”. </p>

<p>Here is a link:</p>

<p><a href=“Justice Dept. finds Cleveland police use excessive force”>Chicago News - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune;

<p>They mention a high speed chase involving more than 100 police officers in more than 60 cars chasing (and later killing) two civilians whose car had backfired.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>CF…What those of us who think the Brown case GJ came to the correct conclusion are saying is not to blindly trust the process, but to recognize the validity of the process when there’s a preponderance of evidence which completely supports the officer’s view. I agree with everyone else that the Garner GJ is indeed a stark example of a travesty of justice, but if we get to a point where we just automatically assume every GJ process where a police shooting is involved is a sham…then our legal system completely loses meaning.</p>

<p>Although some on these threads have criticized the GJ process in Brown’s case, releasing all of the evidence to the public allows those who wish to do so to review the evidence and form our own conclusion as to how we would’ve voted. The Garner case is made even worse because the video makes it very clear to almost everyone that an indictment was absolutely warranted, and on top of that I seriously doubt there will be any public release of evidence that was presented.</p>

<p>I realize how emotionally charged these cases are, and I know it’s easy to say but difficult to do for some people to consider each case independently based on it’s own evidence and circumstances, but a auto-indict simply because a white police officer kills a black youth is not the answer either. I don’t blame anyone for having a mistrust of the system, especially when we continue to see cases like Eric Garner’s. But we do need people to try and set their emotions aside and not automatically assume that past historical racism issues necessarily taint every case in those communities. If that were the case, wouldn’t we have to assume that every case in every state south of the Mason-Dixon line is tainted? Does anyone think that’s actually the case?</p>

<p>Someone posed a question to another poster earlier in the thread along the lines of “Do you think the police ever lie?”. Of course I do, as does anyone with on ounce of objectivity. But I’d like to ask the posters who are convinced the Brown and Garner GJ results are automatically parallels…</p>

<p>“Do you think the police ever tell the truth?”</p>

<p>What is going on with CC? I haven’t been able to log in most of the afternoon! Am I the only one?</p>

<p>On another note, DD was in NYC last night protesting the Eric Garner atrocity. She and her friends had rocks thrown at them! So glad she made it out safely.</p>

<p>Obviously others aren’t having difficulties! I’ve been receiving my CC notifications via email. </p>

<p>Something seems to have overloaded Vanilla, who hosts the site that CC is on. Couldn’t get onto the forum until recently (last 30 minutes or so).</p>

<p>@NewHavenCTMom…No, you’re not the only one having issues. I’ve been getting error messages for the last few hours.</p>

<p>OK. So frustrating! I thought it was just me. Listening to 880 News/New York and they intwrviewed an ex cop, professor of law at John Jay College & past prosecutor. He says that allowing the officer to testify in front of the GJ may have had a huge impact. The officer expressed contrition and that could have swayed the GJ. The officer called it a bungled arrest. Again, these officers are given PLENTY of time to “craft” a story, drum up sympathy, and appear as victims of circumstance. </p>

<p>That has frustrated me in all of these prominent cases. Because the victim is dead they have no chance to make a good impression or tell their story. They have no ability to defend their reputations. The one who did the killing gets all the time in the world to hone their image and craft their story for maximum sympathy.</p>

<p>“what should a police officer do when someone resists arrest?”</p>

<p>For me the issue isn’t about resisting arrest in the Garner case, but why is the police officer arresting people for these types of crimes to begin with. I know an alcoholic who was driving about 25 miles over the speed limit at twice the legal alcohol limit. He sideswiped a police cruiser and then, in his drunken stupor, tried to resist arrest. He was taken to the police station, but not arrested. He got a ticket. A really expensive one, but a ticket. Was it his expensive car and Brooks Bros suit that made the police not arrest him? I don’t know. </p>

<p>I can’t understand why a guy who could easily have killed a whole family in a car, and was clearly a threat to himself and others got a ticket, while a guy selling loose cigarettes was being arrested. </p>

<p>It reminds me of the sentencing differences between rich people’s cocaine, and poor people’s crack cocaine, where the latter was treated so much more severely than the former. </p>

<p>I had a really unsettling experience that was quite visceral and really removed the blinders for me. I have always viewed police officers as “helpers” in the community along with teachers, fire fighters and my post man who lives up the street . . . very Mr. Rodgers. Last year I had an accident - I was entering the freeway on an onramp that curved and angled downward. I cam around the curve heading down hill and just around the corner was a previous accident with 2 cars (the involved plus a witness) a sate trooper vehicle and a tow truck. I had all that congestion on the right and jersey barrier on the left and applied my brakes to slow down to safely pass where there were pedestrians right ton the side of the chute. Well, I hit a patch of oil from the first rain and skidded my car locked out and skidded off to the grass on the right. I didn’t hit anything. There were no flares out although the accident and associated vehicles were around a corner. Well, I had exited my vehicle and was discussing things with my insurance company when the trooper from the first accident left and a new trooper showed up. When everything was said and done he ticketed me for driving too fast for roadway conditions.</p>

<p>I decided to go to the mitigation hearing on the grounds that I was slowing to avoid the accident and no flares were out. I went to traffic court and stated my case when my turn came. The presiding judge was condescending and sarcastic and what’s worse, it turned out that the 2nd officer who wrote the ticket lied on his statement. He stated that he was there on the side of the road when I came barreling around the corner. Whatever else the circumstances were HE WAS NOT THERE - HE LIED ON HIS SWORN STATEMENT. When I tried to clarify with the judge he, in a very sarcastic tone, asked me if I was accusing officer ______ of perjuring himself because that was a VERY serious charge. He kind of went on about it. I wanted to say “yes he lied” but it seemed more prudent to just let his venom wash over me, accept my reduced fine and go to the window to pay my $85. When all was said an done I sat in my car for about 10 minutes and cried before I felt safe to get back out on the road. I found myself thanking my lucky stars that I just had to write a check and walk away. I was thinking that I just couldn’t imagine if my life was really in his power. He was so mean and dismissive and full of himself and the officer lied like a dog.</p>

<p>The issue that I have with both cases is that it is not the job of the grand jury to determine guilt. Their ONLY job is to answer this simple, yes-or-no question:</p>

<p>***Based solely on the damning parts of the evidence, is there a chance that the person could be guilty? ***</p>

<p>This is why grand juries return so many indictments (something like 95%?) - it is an extremely low standard, and exculpatory evidence (i.e., the entire defense) is excluded. The whole point is just to keep the prosecutor from taking unquestionably bad cases to court, without otherwise keeping the course of justice in secret. If you get to the end of the grand jury and people are still questioning whether or not there should have been a trial, it basically means that someone has screwed up big time.</p>

<p>I don’t think Darren Wilson would have been convicted (too much conflicting evidence) but it certainly seems that if we was not an officer an indictment would have been quickly handed down. And that is what should have happened in that case - the trial should have put all the evidence and all the testimony and all the witnesses on public display, so that the question of guilt was reasonably resolved, instead of lingering.</p>

<p>And the Staten Island case is even clearer - of COURSE there was adequate evidence to go to trial. It is absurd that anyone could look at that and say “nope, no chance at all this is showing a crime.”</p>

<p>@saintfan,</p>

<p>Your story does not surprise me. You never saw the dishonesty before then, because it wasn’t your turn. What’s funny is that we all get a turn in some way shape or form. Those moments that slap us in the face and wake us up. Those moments that allow us to see through others glasses. </p>

<p>I have heard time and time again that prosecutors avoid indicting cops because they need cops to provide evidence in cases and they also need cops to vote them in/support them. They must feed off each other. What’s more important? A black life? Or your career and reputation? Black lives matter!</p>

<p>There are problems with the police and there are problems with the grand jury system. Clearly the grand jury process is skewed to produce whatever outcome the prosecutor wants. Just as s/he can “indict a ham sandwich,” s/he can make sure someone like Daniel Pantaleo is spared when it’s crystal clear what he did, based on the video evidence as well as the medical examiner’s finding of homicide. (THIS is why I don’t think it’s appropriate to draw conclusions in Ferguson based on the evidence presented to the grand jury–we don’t know what information WASN’T brought forward, we know the prosecutor did not want to indict, and the potential indictee, as in the Eric Garner case, was allowed to present his side of the story without being cross-examined.)</p>

<p>As an aside, I think the other officers on the scene in the Garner case are partially culpable too. First, for not stopping Pantaleo from using excessive force and an outlawed restraint technique against someone who was not resisting and had his hands up, and second, for further compromising him by their rough handling and failure to render aid when he was clearly incapacitated.</p>

<p>I don’t know what the police would have done with Garner had they brought him to the station. I posted somewhere about how I went into NYC to try to get the brother of my son’s close friend out of the clink. The two brothers had been caught selling mixes, were taken down to the station, the one with the NYU ID let go, his brother put into a holding cell. Didn’t believe they were brothers; they were half brothers with different last names and did not look alike at all. Could not get LE to let him out of the cell. Was heading back home in a huff ready to call my attorney to get him out when the young man called and said his brother was released.</p>

<p>So, no telling what LE would have done with Garner That isn’t really the point The officer that did the chokehold used a procedure, not permitted to be used in a non emergency situation, caught on film with a ME calling the death a homicide. Given how easy it is to get a grand jury indictment, something isn’t right here. My guess is that the DA did not want to prosecute this case for some reason or other. Either he did not feel he could win it, or he was giving the police dept a pass due to the relationship that office has with LE. </p>

<p>I don’t think he’d have been able to get a murder conviction, but the chances looked good for some sort of sentence/conviction to me. The officer should have also gotten some sort of sanction against him from the police dept. There should have been an internal affairs examination of the case. The whole things smacks of collusion. I say this being aware that collusion of sorts is normal between the police and the DA, but when it comes to a case like this where it is so clear that the police officer out and out broke a reg and it was not an urgent “someone in danger” case, it’s wrong. Very wrong.</p>

<p>“I can’t understand why a guy who could easily have killed a whole family in a car, and was clearly a threat to himself and others got a ticket, while a guy selling loose cigarettes was being arrested.” Hayden, the difference is that the one guy did not resist arrest. Once he was brought down to the station, a decision was made as to what to do with him. Garner had been selling loosies and other things, against the law for years. He knew well how the system worked, and that when one is caught doing this, getting booked, getting fined is part of the risk. He was also no stranger to getting arrested as his criminal record shows This is no innocent here. You do not resist arrest or suffer the consequences…BUT… they do not include the choke hold used. If he had resisted arrest and some legal maneuver had led to his death due to his medical condition, it’s a whole other thing. I think what happened here is that the size of the guy made it problematic to get him under control. But the chokehold or anything else not permitted to be done was a serious issue. A line was clearly crossed here. I agree that an investigation is in order and the DA here should be on the hotbox.</p>

<p>However, it does come down to a problem when police officers attempt to arrest someone and he simply refused to cooperate. 400 lbs of someone is a big problem and can do a lot of damage. Again, I think that use of force was an issue; the officer should have faced sanctions, but at what point during an arrest resistance should officers step it up? How much force should they use? Should they just let the guy go? What if he doesn’t respond to the summons? That’s just postponing the issue. At some point in time, officers would have to bring in someone resistant to arrest and with Garner that was 400 lbs of someone. In the meantime, the perp is free, thinking he can win standoffs with the police. It’s a complicated problem.</p>

<p>In the Ferguson case, if MB had been caught pushing around people, stealing the cigarillos with the victims all pointing their fingers at him in fear and anger, would the reaction to the attempt to arrest and the resistance have been as they were? One big problem in high crime , dangerous areas, is that when the police are called, they are reluctant to respond and these cases are going to make even more reluctant. Which is going to make those areas ever more dangerous.</p>

<p>So I don’t have the answers here, am throwing out some questions. But I do not equate this case with the MB case in Ferguson. </p>

<p>Justice Dept. released its findings in investigation of Cleveland PD. I’m not shocked at all about the findings. Sigh.</p>

<p><a href=“http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82184264/”>http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-82184264/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;