I was so pissed at the mayor this morning. I know EXACTLY how Eric Garner was killed. How do I know this? Because I was a witness. The majority of people who have seen the video agree that he died as a result of the chokehold. He may have had asthma, he may have been overweight, but had that cop not taken him down the way he did then stomped on his head while he was repeatedly saying I can’t breath Eric Garner would be alive today to raise his six kids. Selling loosies. Are you kidding me? Talk about crime in the streets. The mayor was a total pussy. I lost any respect I had for him. You can’t be a productive leader trying to please everyone because you’ll never win. There are times when you have to come down on the side of common sense and lead with your spine. I was livid listening to him try to shift the focus to the bigger picture. Obviously there’s a bigger picture that has to be addressed, we’re not stupid. You are the mayor. Of New York City. This happened on your watch. You are doing a disservice to Eric Garner’s family, to the citizen’s of New York and to anyone who saw that video by sitting on the fence. A man lost his life and you watched it happen and that’s your response? What is wrong with you? I am sure the people of New York who put you in office didn’t elect you based on your behavior this morning, that much I DO know. I would have liked to see you giving that kind of pathetic performance in the run up to the election because I assure you you wouldn’t have had an opportunity to sit on ABC on a Sunday morning and spew that kind of useless rhetoric. Shame on you. Eric Garner’s family and the citizen’s of New York deserve much better than what you gave them this morning. I hope in the days ahead you’ll contribute something useful to this tragic injustice.
reported for forum change
Moving this rant from General Questions to the BBQ Pit.
samclem, moderator
Does the mayor have the authority to change the district attorney’s decision? If not, what exactly do you want him to do? It seemed pretty clear to me that he was not backing up the grand jury’s conclusion. You want him to call for rioting in the streets?
I want him to state the obvious. Instead of having an opinion about the specifics on the death of Eric Garner and the grand jury decision, instead he came across as someone who is incapable of saying what everyone is thinking, that there should have been an indictment. Why is that so hard to say? What is he afraid of? Being criticized by the NYPD? Is he that soft? He’s in the wrong job if he can’t speak what the majority of his constituents are thinking, feeling and demonstrating. How blind do you have to be not to come back with an indictment after watching that video? Is Eric Holder going to come to the same conclusion? Thinking he probably will is a sad commentary on the state of justice in the US of A. I just can’t understand how a cop could walk after killing a man using a technique that was banned as far back as 1993. There’s no wiggle room in this case, it is what it is, and what it is according to the medical examiner himself is a homicide. And yet the cop walked? How can ANYONE watch that video and call it anything but at the VERY LEAST a negligible homicide? It defies logic. That’s what I want the mayor to do…call it what it is. That’s all. Speak like someone who is capable of forming your own opinion based on the facts and then speak it.
Emotional ranting won’t get you very far here. Use paragraphs.
I don’t get why people are harping over the term “homicide” on the death certificate. Homicide does not equal murder. I assume every death caused by another person is listed as a homicide. I saw the video, but don’t know much about the case - were the police saying they didn’t cause his death?
Also - the chokehold - is banned by the police department - my understanding is it is not illegal. To charge a cop with murder for doing what any other citizen would be able to do seems a bit silly. Obviously he would be in violation of policy for doing this - that is not a crime.
Also, I could be wrong, but I had been under the understanding that if someone can talk - they can breath. So anyone saying “I can’t breath” is breathing. I don’t know how true this is, but it apparently is used for stuff like CPR:
I’m not at all defending the actions of the police, but I also don’t get the impression the mayor is supportive of the decision.
It is common practice in America to have respect for the rule of law by elected officials. If a grand jury doesn’t indict someone - generally the government supports that decision. Granted the whole ham sand which comes into play here, but it still is the way we do things.
Are you under the impression that any other citizen could have done to Garner what those cops did and not have faced an indictment for an illegal killing of some kind?
Mayor de Blasio should have screamed “burn this bitch down” into the microphone.
I happen to think the guy is a lightweight, but when you’re the mayor of New York City, you absolutely have think about the big picture.
I was wondering the same thing. Even if Garner was simply robbed but had a heart attack and died shortly after it the robber could be tried for murder.
NPR had some NYC official of some sort on the other day saying in a smarmy tone of voice, “If Garner could say, ‘I can’t breathe,’ he obviously could breathe.” As a fat guy with asthma who considers Garner a sort of soul brother I wanted to stuff my fist in that guy’s face saying, “It’s not that simple! There’s a continuum between no air and lots of air and if you’d ever been on the left side of it you’d have more empathy, you smug bastard!”
Seems like a “negligible homicide” is exactly what the Grand Jury decided, so what’s your problem?
I understand, and I agree he needs to respond to the bigger picture.
But he should have done both. He should have responded to the bigger picture after he spoke about the specifics of the Garner killing.
I personally don’t understand why people are questioning the fact that the grand jury got it wrong.
At the very least they should have handed down an indictment for negligible homicide and let the legal process play itself out in court. Instead they compounded the brutality of his death by not recognizing what we all saw on the tape. it’s as if the video didn’t even exist!
He wasn’t packing, he wasn’t intoxicated, he wasn’t even belligerent. He was accused of something that required a ticket. And yet he died.
I think I’m right. I think my conclusions are valid. I think my opinions are based on the facts.
Not only do I think I’m right, I made my points using paragraphs! Cut me some slack, it’s my first post!
What’s my problem?
Yeah, okay. Thank you for reading my post.
First, thanks for breaking your posts down into paragraphs; much easier to read. (I won’t quibble about your choice of frequent breaks. Some is much better than none.)
Second, John Mace is gently and humorously tweaking you about your word choice “negligible homicide.” You mean to say “negligent.” If something is negligible, it has very little importance. But a negligent act is one which disregards duty or conscience.
I use a variety of on line dictionaries. They are quite helpful when self-editing.
Third, welcome to the Straight Dope message board. We’re pedantic and opinionated, but generally harmless. Have fun.
Maybe because not everyone realizes that the coroner’s use of “homicide” does not necessarily equal PD/DA’s use of the word.
-
You drive drunk, crash, & kill someone.
Coroner: Accident
DA: Vehicular manslaughter / homicide charges. -
Guy breaks into your house while brandishing a knife, you shoot him.
Coroner: Homicide
DA: Self-defense/no charges
The consequences of actions in the furtherance of a crime are generally, and rightfully, treated much differently than the consequences of legal actions in the eyes of the law.
This isn’t a commentary on the overall Garner situation, just a note regarding the law.
DataX: “Also - the chokehold - is banned by the police department - my understanding is it is not illegal.”
It’d be illegal if I did it to you. 
At any rate, while banned by internal policy, the fact that a chokehold itself is “not illegal” does not mean that (according to the coroner) that in the absence of this act, Garner would be alive.
I don’t see a “murder” charge in there, but I do see negligent homicide. Unfortunately, the way prosecutors present cases to GJs against police officers tends to be one-sided as compared to how they’d present the same facts and other information in a non-police killing. I don’t necessarily blame the GJ members (who generally know that police are rarely charged, and as such enter into their work with an inclination toward “no indictment” and this is also taken advantage of by the prosecutor steering the presentation).
“Also, I could be wrong, but I had been under the understanding that if someone can talk - they can breath.”
Someone being able to express air to pass over their vocal chords does not mean that they have the ability to breathe. And I don’t know if you have any respiratory problems, but trying to breathe once those have activated while people are compressing on your chest/back never mind choking you = problem.
What the mayor would do/say as a private person is entirely different from what he as a political leader and governmental official is entitled to say (not that it’d be unlawful to speak his mind, but it wouldn’t be helpful when you can rely on the feds to weigh in).
Evidently you don’t.
One perspective from which I’ve not seen enough coverage (chest compression):