# Why wasn't the police officer who killed Eric Garner indicted? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271 "2014-12-04T00:06:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/241 "2014-12-05T16:24:09Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The events were disputed only because of the lack of video evidence. No. There were eyewitnesses that corroborated Wilson’s account. There were also eyewitnesses that contradicted Wilson’s account. Thus, “disputed.” And we DO have video of Brown robbing the store and shoving the owner aside. If there was evidence that confrontation with Garner began with him committing a “real” crime – something with a victim, not cigarette tax BS – I think people would be less sympathetic. > [@](#): > > For those who think Brown and Garner’s case are radically apart: Try this thought experiment. What do you think the cops’ version of events would be if there _hadn’t_ been video evidence? They’d be lying, as they often do. And, as noted, “The authoritarian conservatives are gonna be on the side of the cops, and the authoritarian liberals will be too, at the end of the day.” They usually are. Progressives and libertarians will be skeptical of the police, as they usually are. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/242 "2014-12-05T16:28:43Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > No need to compare Brown with Rice, because that’s not the point. Your “point” originally was: > [@](#): > > There are about as many posters in that thread that think Brown’s death was unjustified as there was that say it was. Can I at least get some sort of acknowlegdement that this “point” was incorrect? > [@](#): > > The point is that you have no rational basis for saying it’s unfortunate that so much attention has been given to Brown, when the Ferguson protests have catalyzed the existence of this very thread and every other active SDMB thread about police brutality. > > To say in one breath that it’s the “accretion” of cases that is having an effect, while ignoring the role that the Ferguson publicity has played in making the mainstream even aware of this “accretion” (which, as already been pointed out, has been accreting forever, by the way), is laughable. So it is “laughable” now to point out that a social problem is bound, eventually, to have an outlet? Okay - so, in your opinion, if it had not been for Ferguson, the issue would _never_ be aired? Seriously? 😕 > [@](#): > > Emmet Till suddenly comes to mind. He was a young black guy who was lynched for the “crime” of whistling at a white woman. I could very easily imagine someone saying a person like him should not have been treated as cause celebre for the Civil Rights movement, because after all, what he did could be construed as street harassment, no?\* Certainly the activists could find a better example to rally around. A victim whose morality and goodness was more clear-cut, less ambiguous. Someone completely non-threatening like Rosa Parks. And yet the history books show that Till’s murder was privotal in changing the public’s awareness of racism. Without the press given to him and his murderers’ trial, things might be different in this country. Huh? The issue is not the “morality and goodness” of the victim, but whether his shooting by the cops was justified or not. There is no question that Till was lynched. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/243 "2014-12-05T16:31:09Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > How do you know if you’re being arrested, though? > > If I’m walking down the street and a cop suddenly comes over and puts me a in bear hug so another cop can cuff me, why should I assume I’m under arrest if they don’t tell me I am? Because a person is seized when a reasonable person in his position would believe he’s not permitted to leave, which message is conveyed adequately by a bear hug. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it perfectly reasonable for me to think these cops mean me harm, regardless of whether they are wearing a uniform? Sure. > [@](#): > > Why do I not have the right to self-defense in this situation? Because the New York legislature says you don’t. > [@](#): > > To make it unlawful for a person to do anything in this scenario except submit to a possible kidnapping like a quiet little lamb should bother everyone, whether they be on the left or right. It also makes me question the point of the 2nd amendment. If all an Oppressive Government needs to do to subjugate the people is tell cops to arrest any gun owner and confiscate their weapons, then it’s a right with no teeth and we might as well chuck it out the window. Well, there are thirteen states which retain the right to resist an illegal arrest. In general, it’s the more progressive-leaning states which have abrogated it, believing that a person illegally arrested may vindicate his rights in the courtroom as opposed to the street; I think all thirteen states which retain the right are in the South. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/244 "2014-12-05T16:36:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Precisely. I’ve been truly shocked at just how fully and completely Wilson’s story was taken for gospel. People describe it by saying “we know” that Brown called him a pussy or that Brown had a hold of the gun. Stuff that cops say may or may not be true. There is certainly a lot of motivation for them to shade the story in a particular direction. Video helps to cut down on ambiguities and unknowns. Hahahaha. I don’t believe anyone has said Wilson’s complete story should be, or was, taken for gospel. Forensic evidence, and many eyewitnesses, agree with Wilson’s testimony. There was a physical confrontation at the police vehicle. Shot were fired inside the vehicle. Brown outran his sandals, stopped, turned, and advanced towards Wilson, who had been following Brown. Wilson believed he was in a threatening situation and fired more rounds. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/245 "2014-12-05T16:38:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ask and ye shall receive. (Of course Matthew goes on to say, “Seek and ye shall find.” 🙂 ) Thanks for that - it indeed says what you say it says. I would reiterate that it is a very strange law. Taken literally, it would appear that the victims of a crooked copper who was committing (for example) kidnappings and rapes would be committing offences should they attempt to resist his “arrest” of them, even if they knew for a fact that the purported “arrest” was a total fraud and just made for the purpose of rendering them helpless (by say putting the cuffs on them). Obviouly that is not the intent and it would not happen in real life that a person would be charged under these circumstances, but the law as drafted looks like it is open to obvious abuses. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/246 "2014-12-05T16:49:02Z")
> [@furt](#): > > And we DO have video of Brown robbing the store and shoving the owner aside. > > If there was evidence that confrontation with Garner began with him committing a “real” crime – something with a victim, not cigarette tax BS – I think people would be less sympathetic. Certainly some people are and would be less sympathetic where the victim is perceived to be a “real” criminal. Which is unfortunate, since the duty of officers is actually the same, right? Wilson isn’t justified in killing Brown _because_ Brown robbed a store some time earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/247 "2014-12-05T16:52:17Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Obviouly that is not the intent and it would not happen in real life that a person would be charged under these circumstances, but the law as drafted looks like it is open to obvious abuses. Your faith in the first two clauses seems at odds with the observation of the last. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/248 "2014-12-05T16:56:58Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Your faith in the first two clauses seems at odds with the observation of the last. Huh? The “abuses” are bound to be things other than the reductio ad absurdum I proposed. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/249 "2014-12-05T16:57:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Can I at least get some sort of acknowlegdement that this “point” was incorrect? I will concede that the distance isn’t as close as I suggested they were. But do you agree that my overall argument still stands? Can you read what I posted [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17951820&postcount=223) and respond to it? How likely is it that cops would tell us the truth about how Garner died if they hadn’t been filmed? Do you think, perhaps, their story would be quite like Wilson’s tale of woe? “A big scary black man tried to attack me and so I had no choice but to kill him to save my life?” It’s a script that is old and moldy. So why it is so irresistible by some? > [@](#): > > Okay - so, in your opinion, if it had not been for Ferguson, the issue would _never_ be aired? Seriously? 😕 Maybe it would get a little local airtime, but no, it is stupid and naïve to think it would be covered like it has been. You really seem to be having a hard time believing this but it’s very critical that you do–Garner’s death is not a unique or a new thing. The black community has been seeing this kind of stuff play out since the days of yabba dabba do. In recent years, with smartphones, there is more opportunity to tape these episodes. But even this isn’t new. Rodney King’s taped beating happened in the 90’s after all. Without Ferguson putting this issue on center stage, Garner’s video would likely be treated like all those other videos that have been floating around on youtube since youtube’s inception. As isolated little vignettes that no cares enough to put on the news. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/250 "2014-12-05T17:02:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Thanks for that - it indeed says what you say it says. > > I would reiterate that it is a very strange law. i don’t think so. I’ve seen plenty of incidences IRL and on video of people resisting arrest because they think the arrest isn’t warranted. Resisting arrest ends up in a physical altercation and as we know by now, that’s not a good thing. Often these folks are wrong and the police are making a legal arrest. IME, most people are way off on what their legal rights are and aren’t knowledgeable enough to determine when an illegal arrest is occurring. The more people that are aware that the law says that you have to comply even if you believe the arrest is unwarranted and that you should let the police arrest you and you can fight that later, the better off everyone will be. I thought it was pretty obvious to everyone that getting into a physical altercation with a police officer is stupid, but I guess I was wrong. > [@](#): > > Taken literally, it would appear that the victims of a crooked copper who was committing (for example) kidnappings and rapes would be committing offences should they attempt to resist his “arrest” of them, even if they knew for a fact that the purported “arrest” was a total fraud and just made for the purpose of rendering them helpless (by say putting the cuffs on them). > > Obviouly that is not the intent and it would not happen in real life that a person would be charged under these circumstances, but the law as drafted looks like it is open to obvious abuses. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/251 "2014-12-05T17:08:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Thanks for that - it indeed says what you say it says. > > I would reiterate that it is a very strange law. Thirty-six other states have similar laws. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/252 "2014-12-05T17:10:48Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m now convinced that there is a secret society to which certain right-wing extremists belong that obliges them to defend the police at all costs and at all times. It’s the only way to explain the predictable consistency of some of the comments in both this and the Ferguson threads and the utter contempt for facts and evidence and for the principle of measured response. One really does wonder if there’s anything a police officer could ever do to have them calling for his indictment, unless of course it happens to them personally. Other than that, I don’t think there is. Dang… I knew you’d catch us eventually. It’s hard to hide all those times that we’ve gone out burning and looting when a cop gets indicted. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/253 "2014-12-05T17:22:44Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Certainly some people are and would be less sympathetic where the victim is perceived to be a “real” criminal. Which is unfortunate, since the duty of officers is actually the same, right? Wilson isn’t justified in killing Brown _because_ Brown robbed a store some time earlier. It doesn’t matter legally, it does matter viscerally (and what matters viscerally is what matters politically). People on all sides tend to think in terms of good guys and bad guys, and concepts like “he was indeed a criminal, but he can also be a victim” or “the officer reacted poorly, but that doesn’t mean he committed a crime” are difficult for many to accept. The Garner case offers what, to many of us, looks to be something close to a completely, truly innocent victim. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/254 "2014-12-05T17:23:33Z")
> [@furt](#): > > When you hear people say “everything government does comes at the barrel of gun,” cases like this are exactly what we mean. So why exactly are we punishing the enforcer? The elected officials of New York are the ones that choose to criminalize petty behaviors and place emphasis on enforcing lifestyle/broken windows crimes. It’s simple math. If there are X people are caught selling looses, Y% of them are going to resist, Q% are going to be in poor health, and in Z% of them the cop is going to screw up. Why are we supposed to throw that unlucky cop into jail? We certainly don’t in analogous situations. I know for certain that in 2015 a doctor will screw up and kill a patient. An industrial worker will not follow proper procedures and kill a coworker. A member of the military will kill an ally in a friendly fire incident. A software defect will cause equipment to malfunction and kill someone. In none of these cases will a doctor, worker, soldier, or programmer be arrested and sent to jail. Why should we treat the cop differently? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/255 "2014-12-05T17:24:40Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The Garner case offers what, to many of us, looks to be something close to a completely, truly innocent victim. I think he’s only that if you ignore him breaking the law and resisting arrest. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/256 "2014-12-05T17:31:13Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > i don’t think so. I’ve seen plenty of incidences IRL and on video of people resisting arrest because they think the arrest isn’t warranted. Resisting arrest ends up in a physical altercation and as we know by now, that’s not a good thing. Often these folks are wrong and the police are making a legal arrest. IME, most people are way off on what their legal rights are and aren’t knowledgeable enough to determine when an illegal arrest is occurring. > > The more people that are aware that the law says that you have to comply even if you believe the arrest is unwarranted and that you should let the police arrest you and you can fight that later, the better off everyone will be. I thought it was pretty obvious to everyone that getting into a physical altercation with a police officer is stupid, but I guess I was wrong. > :rolleyes: Well, I agree, but if it turns out to be a resistance of a legal arrest, one can be charged with that as well. The problem with having to submit to an illegal arrest is that what the official as a representative of the government is doing is, well, illegal. Without lawful authority. No different than Joe the kidnapper putting handcuffs on you. In a sense it is worse because they are pretending that they have lawful authority to do it. An arrest is a tremendous burden and violation of the security of your person and your liberty. If it is unlawful, I can’t see a theoretical difference in why a person should not be allowed to fight the first and not the second. As a practical matter, it is uncommonly foolish to fight a police officer. They will bring out the requisite number of people and weaponry to arrest you, even if it means killing you. It is best to submit. However, I see no good reason to punish someone for resisting an unlawful intrusion on their person. On its face it is absurd, and a violation of the rights of any free person. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/257 "2014-12-05T17:35:02Z")
> [@treis](#): > > So why exactly are we punishing the enforcer? The elected officials of New York are the ones that choose to criminalize petty behaviors and place emphasis on enforcing lifestyle/broken windows crimes. It’s simple math. If there are X people are caught selling looses, Y% of them are going to resist, Q% are going to be in poor health, and in Z% of them the cop is going to screw up. Why are we supposed to throw that unlucky cop into jail? > > We certainly don’t in analogous situations. I know for certain that in 2015 a doctor will screw up and kill a patient. An industrial worker will not follow proper procedures and kill a coworker. A member of the military will kill an ally in a friendly fire incident. A software defect will cause equipment to malfunction and kill someone. In none of these cases will a doctor, worker, soldier, or programmer be arrested and sent to jail. Why should we treat the cop differently? I’m not entirely familiar with the MPC and “criminally negligent homicide” but there is an additional element of culpability between simple negligence and one that arises to criminality. The examples you give are largely simple negligence. I would argue that when one is directly causing the death, applying force to the person causing the death, with no misapprehensions of who the individual is and why one is doing it, such as cutting off the oxygen supply to the brain with his arm, then it rises above simple negligence. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/258 "2014-12-05T17:35:15Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Huh? The “abuses” are bound to be things other than the reductio ad absurdum I proposed. Sorry, misread you. Thought you were saying the law “obviously” wouldn’t be abused and wasn’t meant to be, though it was technically open to that. IME, if there is any opening for abuse it will happen, and this is not always unintentional. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/259 "2014-12-05T17:55:53Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > However, I see no good reason to punish someone for resisting an unlawful intrusion on their person… I think I gave one already. IME, a whole lot of people think they know what their rights are and they are wrong. If the law said that you can resist arrest with impunity in the case when the arrest is illegal, we would end up with a whole lot more cases of people resisting arrest and a lot more physical altercations with police. In a whole bunch of those cases, probably the vast majority, John Q. Public will end up being wrong about what does and doesn’t make an arrest illegal. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/260 "2014-12-05T17:56:01Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’m not entirely familiar with the MPC and “criminally negligent homicide” but there is an additional element of culpability between simple negligence and one that arises to criminality. The examples you give are largely simple negligence. I would argue that when one is directly causing the death, applying force to the person causing the death, with no misapprehensions of who the individual is and why one is doing it, such as cutting off the oxygen supply to the brain with his arm, then it rises above simple negligence. I would say that except in the case of the programmer, each of those individuals is directly causing the death. Some soldier is going to shoot a friendly. Some worker is going to open a valve that releases something that kills a coworker. Some doctor is going to nick an artery. Either way, that’s missing the point. Let me make up some numbers. The NYPD is going to arrest 1,000,000 suspects next year. 1% are going to resist. That leaves us 10,000. In 1% of those, a cop is going to screw up and violate procedure. So that’s 100 incidents. In 1% of those the suspect is going to be in poor health and die. Why are we throwing that cop in jail? He just happened to be the one that “won” the 1/1,000,000 lottery. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=14)