It is exceedingly rare for a grand jury not to indict when there is a corpse and it is clear who turn a living human being into the corpse… unless the killer is a cop.
There may be several reasons for this. DA’s might press charges against cops where they would not press charges against a civilian to satisfy political pressure. DAs might not prosecute cops as vigorously as they would a civilian. Grand Juries might be less inclined to indict cops because there is a societal bias.
We empower the police with the police power, which includes the justifiable use of force. Putting aside that it was against NYPD policy to use a choke hold, I didn’t see excessive use of force in that video (assuming arrest was warranted in the first place). Eric Garner was probably an unfortunate accident but his death is still difficult to defend.
Michael Brown’s death is much easier to defend.
He wouldn’t have died without the asthma or heart condition either. There are several “but for” causes of his death. Can we at least agree that it was not murder and was likely negligent homicide. The sort of thing you can get sued for but not go to jail for?
If I punch a guy in a barfight and he dies because he has a weak blood vessel in his brain, I shouldn’t go to jail for it but I can get sued for it, right?
Did we invest those 5 black guys with the police power?
I think our ridiculous levels of warrior worship has bled into police worship but there is a HUGE difference between cops using force to carry out their duties as policemen and criminal using force to beat up a cop.
I hate Al Sharpton but he is about as responsible for the death of those cops as Pat Robertson is for the murder of abortion doctors and gay men.
Cite? For a state grand jury of course?
What’s so hard is that, according to this logic, if muggers throw a fat old man to the ground after he resisted when they took his wallet, and the fat old man dies because sometimes fat old men die when they are thrown to the ground, you’d say that the muggers didn’t kill the fat old man.
That defies common sense and common usage of language.
If they were muggers dressed like cops but the video was identical, would you deny that the muggers killed Garner? And you haven’t yet answered this question: if muggers throw a fat old man to the ground after he resists, and the fat old man dies, would you deny that the muggers killed the fat old man?
I will admit that I haven’t read this entire thread. I just wanted to pop in and say:
“Fuck yeah it’s Obama’s fault.” Sorry I didn’t read the whole thing, but it’s like, 6 pages.
Because I didn’t know if you were asking a strictly legal question or not. That’s why I supplied a definition that gives the greatest context that I could find. And that is also why I asked how you were using the word. If you don’t find that the most sensible thing to do, then I can’t really help you.
Who is not acknowledging it? I said repeatedly that the police bear some responsibility. You want to include the degree to which they didn’t follow protocol, fine with me. I agree that that should be looked into as well.
I like this. Well put.
If it has dawned on you yet, your analogy using non-cops to lay hands on people simply doesn’t work. Another poster or two pointed this out, but I guess your passion in getting to, “The cops killed Kenny!” (aka Eric Garner) immunizes you from logic, huh? Fighting the good fight and all, right?
You’ve failed to convince me that when a fat, unhealthy man is grabbed, put in various breathing-restricted positions, brought to the ground, and dies, that whether or not the men who did this killed him depends on their occupation.
Terr is right on this one, and you are wrong.
I’ve answered your questions – yes, his health contributed to his death. Why won’t you answer mine?
Dude… you’re missing iiandyiiii’s point by a country mile. If police strike a man who’s resisting arrest in the face and break his nose, or if a mugger walks up to someone in the street and breaks his nose, sure the legality of these actions may differ, but in both cases you would say the striker broke someone’s nose. That’s uncontroversial.
Now, consider that instead of nose-breaking, the action is chokehold followed by prone positioning that leads to complications resulting in death. If a mugger walked up to a fat old man in the street and did to him exactly what the cops did to Garner, and he emerged from the encounter a corpse, you would (presumably?) be ok characterizing that event as “the mugger killed the fat old man.” If so, consistency should compel you to agree that the cops who chokeholded and prone-positioned Garner leading to complications resulting in his death indeed killed Garner. Not necessarily murdered him, but killed him, as reflected in the death being classified as a homicide.
And I’ll add that even if someone’s nose is very delicate because they just had surgery, the striker still broke their nose (even if the prior surgery was a contributing factor), whether the striker was a cop or not.
You have utterly failed to convince me that it makes sense to say that the cops killed garner when there were underlying causes to his death that were not the result of police action. Contrast this with the Michael Brown incident. There, the cop(s) did, in fact, kill Michael Brown.
Tell me this. Which statement do you think is more accurate:
A) The cops killed Eric Garner.
B) Eric Garner died because of a confluence of factors, which if you removed any one, Garner would likely be alive today.
Gotta go with A). Were it not for the cops, Garner would be alive today.
Wow. You can’t even copy and paste. Impressive!
Definitely A. Much more concise. Further, it’s logical in the same way that “the muggers killed the fat old man” is logical. B might be true too, but A is more concise and much more in keeping with the common usage of the word “kill”. So I think A is more accurate.
If it were muggers dressed like cops that killed Garner, would you choose A or B?
I’ve answered multiple questions from you. Will you please answer a single question from me?
I didn’t ask which is more concise. I asked which is more accurate, so the beginning of your answer is just fuzz. The fact that you think A is MORE ACCURATE is truly insane. Especially when you’ve already admitted that his obesity and asthma were contributing factors! Unless you’d like now to access the weasality built in to your “possibly/probably”. :rolleyes:
I did. It’s a gloriously inapt analogy and I have no interest in furthering its miserable life one breath more.
I’m asking you if muggers take down a fat old man and he dies, did they kill him? Why are you so afraid to answer this question? I’m sure this has happened in human history… in incidents such as this, is it correct or not to state that the muggers killed him?
Again, Terr is right on this one. Muggers killed the fat old man. The cops killed Garner. In both cases, the poor health of the dead person contributed, and made it much, much easier for the muggers/cops to kill him by accident. The poor health made it more likely that those actions would kill the fat old man/Garner. It was not on purpose – the muggers didn’t mean to kill the fat old man, and the cops didn’t mean to kill Garner, but in both cases, they killed a man by mistake.