No indictment in Eric Garner Death

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not saying to trust the process at all. That’s just saying that based on the evidence, if you were on a criminal jury you’d vote to acquit, based on what you know. So would I. That’s not enough. </p>

<p>If a process doesn’t work, you can’t trust it. Even if in some cases the result seems right, you can’t trust it to be right if you don’t trust it in other cases.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with you on this, but I guess where we disagree is that I don’t think the process always “doesn’t work”. Someone else pointed out upthread some other instances where GJ proceedings produced the proper results, and I believe the Brown GJ produced the proper result. It was certainly non-standard, but personally I’d rather see more evidence than less presented to help determine whether an indictment is warranted. And especially in emotionally volatile cases like these I really like the evidence being made public afterwards so we can all make our own informed conclusions. </p>

<p>GJ proceedings that are “rubber stamps” for either indictments or no bills “don’t work”, and I agree that there are far too many of them but it’s not absolute. Personally, I’d rather see a little more thorough look by the GJ before deciding one way or the other on an indictment. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But if the process is not transparent, how do you know for certain that it sometimes “works”? There are thousands of GJ cases besides those of Michael Brown and Eric Garner and John Crawford.</p>

<p>Can we all agree that independent investigations of incidents involving police make sense–and that the charges should not come from prosecutors who have close relationships with police in their communities (and thus a vested interest in protecting them)?</p>

<p>I would love to see a law (or laws) that said that crimes by police would be investigated and prosecuted and tried outside the jurisdiction of the officer(s). As has been noted, police have a unique position in the community, and it may simply not be possible for them to get a fair trial (one way or the other) when the case is in the hands of their coworkers.</p>

<p>Sally…I wouldn’t have a problem with independent investigations, depending on who the “investigator” was. Just as with the current system, there is always going to be the possibility (and sometimes the probability and/or certainty) that the “independent” investigator has an agenda and the results could be viewed as just as skewed as under the old system. The problem would be finding a group of folks that most everyone can feel is impartial in any type of case, regardless of the circumstances. I’m not sure such a group exists…but I’d be fine with that as an option if the mythical group could be located.</p>

<p>Are you all aware that a black woman sergeant was supervising the Eric Garner takedown? </p>

<p>She’s guilty too, at least guilty of not stopping the killing.</p>

<p>

First, does the supervisor’s race make this any better? Does it make the death of this man any more justified? Does it speak to the motivation of the man who, unordered, leaped onto the victim’s back and administered an illegal and fatal chokehold?</p>

<p>Second, do we know her opinion on this? Was she four-square behind it, or was she thinking “I need to deal with his unprofessional posterior after all this is over!” Just because she didn’t stop it doesn’t mean she approved of it - it may have just meant that stopping that choke hold was lower on her priority list than completing the arrest.</p>

<p>Remember that a lot of people put more faith in personal experience and anecdotal evidence than they do in rules and studies - it is quite possible that she (and he) had no problems with administering a choke hold because they had never seen it kill anyone and felt they were unlikely to do so.</p>

<p>Wrong is wrong I don’t care who is there. Excessive force is excessive force regardless of the gender or color of any of the parties involved. That’s like saying that if your department head is a woman it is impossible for a any man in the department to sexually harass you. It’s an easy out, though. Of course maybe Office P is just a punk all around no matter who you are. He could be an equal opportunity __________</p>

<p>Of the many things that bother me about this case, the thing that haunts me the most is that there were multiple cops and EMTs standing by while someone’s son was dying and nobody tried to help. Yes, we can debate legality and racism and historical context, but I would have liked a trial to try to understand what could allow any person to stand by in that situation and not help. I do not understand. </p>

<p>All the other police officers and EMTs were given immunity before they testified to the Grand Jury.</p>

<p>The officer who wasn’t indicted has a history of complaints.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the police very rarely tell the truth when it is against self interest or the interest of other cops. My ex-husband was a cop and it wasn’t uncommon for cops to carry “drop guns” - small unregistered handguns that could be planted easily on someone in case it turned out the person shot wasn’t armed. They were willing to say anything to cover for one another. The prosecutors supported them without question. </p>

<p>

My uncle carried a “throwaway gun” in an ankle holster - it was for those times when he felt he would need to shoot someone without having it traced back to him. Quite the eye-opener when I found out.</p>

<p>I think the vast majority of police are trying really hard to do the right thing. But a lot of them are willing to make compromises or take shortcuts for what they perceive as the “greater good”, and since they are largely (de facto) self-regulated, they get away with it. I don’t think my uncle was a bad guy, I think he was a good guy who felt that he knew justice so well that he didn’t need oversight. But oversight is needed, both because of the relative who really are bad and because any self-regulating group is going to tend to abuse their positions unless they are actively prevented from doing so.</p>

<p>Re: #171, #172</p>

<p>It would not be surprising if different police departments varied all over the map from squeaky clean to extremely dirty/corrupt/racist/etc… But “drop guns”, “throwaway guns”, planting “evidence”, and approval of such things indicate police departments that are rather dirty.</p>

<p>What about the death penalty cases where defendants are exonerated due to dirty police work & collusion with prosecutors. Only to have the cases reopened by the innocence project and the nefarious deeds are discovered. This happens all over the U.S. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is so wrong. The entire thing was clearly rigged. Don’t people usually get immunity when they have some information that only they know, that is essential to making the case against a defendant? WE HAVE VIDEO. No one disputes what happened on that street. </p>

<p>The posts about being followed in a store made me think of something in a way that I didn’t think of at the time. I know these incidences occur. I am asking this question with sincerity, because I would like to know the best way to handle it. </p>

<p>I have volunteered in schools and was recently helping proctor an exam- older teens. I noticed some motion going on with two students sitting together that got my attention. They were moving around in their chairs, looking at each other, and moving their papers around. The teacher didn’t seem concerned. I had no proof of cheating, but I did watch them from time to time, because they were not sitting still in their seats with their eyes on their papers, and the other students were. I also watched the other students, but didn’t have reason to notice them.</p>

<p>It was not my place to address this, and since I didn’t see any strong evidence of cheating, I didn’t mention it. They could have been fidgety and uncomfortable in their seats. Maybe the teacher already knew this, as well as their academic records and so knew this was not a problem. I didn’t have enough information to know what was going on. </p>

<p>However, if I was the teacher and had some concerns about it. I would have looked at their papers later and if there had been some signs of cheating, would have spoken to each one individually. Without proof, I would not have made an accusation, but I would ask them to keep their papers still next time. </p>

<p>The class was diverse, with many African American students, and all of the students were taking the test in an appropriate manner, except these two students. They were African American. It was their moving around in their seats that caught my attention, but how would they know that? </p>

<p>With me looking at them, how will this not look like more of the same targeting that they have been subjected to? They don’t know what I am thinking, or that I am also looking at the other students, but they are the only ones doing this. I ask this because if I were to speak to them, they may legitimately feel targeted. In fact, they may already feel this way since I did observe them to get a better idea of what was going on. </p>

<p>However, not speaking to them tells them it is OK to do what they are doing, and I think it is important to teach kids what they need to do in school to succeed and also appropriate behavior during a test. Would I need to have a colleague of the same race as a student present when I speak to them so that they don’t perceive this as being about race? </p>

<p>Pennylane, in all sincerity, how is this related to perfectly respectable potential customers walking into a store and being followed around by employees solely because of the color of their skin?</p>

<p>“Are you all aware that a black woman sergeant was supervising the Eric Garner takedown?”</p>

<p>So? That makes no difference. </p>

<p>I was afraid of this being misinterpreted, but it really is out of concern for these students. If they were followed around in a store, for no reason-that is absolutely wrong. </p>

<p>It isn’t direcly related to the store, but when I read about the store, it made me wonder how the kids felt when I noticed them fidgeting. </p>

<p>My point being, is that I was concerned they would feel targeted in a similar way as being targeted in other situations, and I really would like to handle this in a sensitive manner and I don’t know how. </p>

<p>Just getting different responses makes me even more worried about being misinterptered- that if even though this post my concern for the students and desire not to have them feel uncomfortable doesn’t come through. </p>

<p>But I would also not feel right if I never talked to kids about fidgeting and moving their test papers around and it got them unfairly in trouble later with a proctor who didn’t know them. </p>