# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/361 "2014-12-08T01:08:42Z")
This seems to have gotten off track from the rather central point that Garner wasn’t being violent, from what I could see. The cop was. That kind of response should not be justifiable against anyone who has not actually pulled a weapon or attacked a police officer. I wonder if anyone truly believes that under similar circumstances a cop would have applied a violent chokehold if instead of a poor black guy in baggy shorts accused of selling illegal cigarettes the subject had been a rich white guy in a $5000 suit accused of securities fraud. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/362 "2014-12-08T01:08:54Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > No it’s about whether we should make it against the law to resist arrest, even when the arrest is unlawful. > > Resisting could be as simple as refusing to present one’s arms for cuffing, demanding not to be touched, or shifting one’s weight around to make it difficult to be grabbed. These are behaviors that Garner took. > > If the cops were acting unlawfully by using force to arrest him (and I’m not saying that they necessarily were), the question before us is whether Garner’s resistance should be considered illegal. I say no on principle. And this is why I always drop out out multi-paged threads [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving\_the\_goalposts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) [ > [@](#): > > (1) A person is guilty of resisting arrest if he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer from lawfully arresting him or her. > > ``` > (2) Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor. > > ``` ]([RCW 9A.76.040: Resisting arrest.](http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.76.040)) It is a but misdemeanor in many states even when they arrest is lawful. Who here said it should be always illegal…using force, or self-defense was the subject at hand. The attempt to expand it to sit-ins is absurd in the context of the conversation. Most proponents of non-violent resistance will suggest you do not fight once the police try to arrest you but that is a completely separate thread. ---
**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 8, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/363 "2014-12-08T01:17:52Z")
In a democracy that is working according to ideal democratic principles, using the court to set things right makes a whole lot of sense. But when the courts fail to work reliably, then people will consider the system broken. Maybe not irreparably broken, but seriously dysfuntional. Rightly or wrongly, that is how people will feel. Folks in the Ivory Tower could tell them they are wrong to believe the system is in disrepair (presumably because the system works just fine for them), but for obvious reasons, Ivory Tower logic isn’t very persuasive to people living outside of the Tower. So the people will protest…for the most part, peacefully. Because people still haven’t completely lost hope. It is only when system failures continue and become even more obvious, that protests become riots. This process is not really subject to “shoulds” because it’s as natural and predictable as history tells us it is for the entire species. So sermonizing about it doesn’t do much good. The answer lies in fixing the system so that people have some faith in it again. Or maybe at least do away with the pretense of a free society that is by the people, for the people. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/364 "2014-12-08T01:23:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > This seems to have gotten off track from the rather central point that Garner wasn’t being violent, from what I could see. The cop was. That kind of response should not be justifiable against anyone who has not actually pulled a weapon or attacked a police officer. > > I wonder if anyone truly believes that under similar circumstances a cop would have applied a violent chokehold if instead of a poor black guy in baggy shorts accused of selling illegal cigarettes the subject had been a rich white guy in a $5000 suit accused of securities fraud. If they were mentally ill or obviously homeless they would but yes african-americans are the more common recipients of this form of Institutional racism at an embarrassingly huge biased rate… WARNING: the following video is graphic…but from my neck of the woods. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9pluHd7TBQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9pluHd7TBQ) The deaths happen to non-whites more often due to serious race issues in the system but the police behavior probably has more to do with the war on drugs and terror. To simplify it as just a race issue makes the two issues seem less ugly than they are. 1. Institutional racism in the ENTIRE justice system is rampant and out of control. 2. Police have escalated the level of force and violence that they use to levels that should strike fear in every citizen. #2 applies no matter if they are a member of a privileged group (like me) or if they are way way over represented in the court and prison system due to #1. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/365 "2014-12-08T01:32:10Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s worth pointing out that it _should_ be very difficult to prosecute someone of a crime. When the result of a prosecution can be many years of imprisonment and/or financial ruin, it’s absolutely necessary that the we are as certain as possible of guilt. > > To bring this back on topic, it may be that Garner was unjustly killed. But that injustice would be compounded, not rectified, by treating the police who may have killed him unjustly. You are absolutely correct, but the issue with these cases, is that they apparently didn’t make it past grand jury hearings. I can see why Brown didn’t, but to be honest, that wasn’t a typical grand jury hearing. The evidence was there to get the indictment, but the prosecutor didn’t pursue the normal method to obtain it. The Garner grand jury was kept secret, which is the norm, but because of that, there is no telling why the jury didn’t indict. This is important because the evidence isn’t disputed in grand jury hearings. Typically, prosecutors would not even present evidence that doesn’t support charges but at least in Brown, they certainly did. So this officers were never tried. In Brown, just looking at witness testimony, it certainly seems that charges should have resulted. In Garner, the video is damning as it is, on top of the fact that the officer used a procedure specifically banned. So it seems very much like the officers were receiving special treatment. ---
**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 8, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/366 "2014-12-08T01:34:27Z")
I just went back and read some posts I overlooked and spotted this comment. > [@jtgain](#): > > But if you are saying that Garner would have a hard time proving excessive force during his arrest, I disagree. Civil rights lawyers are swarming sharks ready to take on those types of cases. Wouldn’t cost him a dime, either. This thread is about Garner being killed by cops and there not even being an indictment for that despite the use of prohibited restraint. How can you square this sobering piece of reality with your belief that a living Garner could’ve easily sued the NYPD for excessive force? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/367 "2014-12-08T01:43:31Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I just went back and read some posts I overlooked and spotted this comment. > > This thread is about Garner being killed by cops and there not even being an indictment for that despite the use of prohibited restraint. How can you square this sobering piece of reality with your belief that a living Garner could’ve easily sued the NYPD for excessive force? Non-sequitur, the legal standard that is required for homicide is vastly different than the standard in a civil case. Note that have I never talked about civil penalties in this thread. This comment does demonstrate that I should be using my time in other more productive ways. I do not have the time to debate this subject with people who lack a basic understanding of our legal system. Have a great day. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/368 "2014-12-08T01:49:45Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > FYI, The Freedom Riders probably could have used force but they also would have probably pushed back the movement by years in doing so. The Freedom Riders were not the sum total of the civil rights movement. There was some violence, and it’s not clear to me that some of the violence might not have played a complementary role in the success of the movement. > [@jtgain](#): > > But if you are saying that Garner would have a hard time proving excessive force during his arrest, I disagree. Civil rights lawyers are swarming sharks ready to take on those types of cases. Wouldn’t cost him a dime, either. Garner is dead. He was murdered. There was no chance for him to pursue anything in court. On top of that, the court’s role only works if once the court has set a bar, then cops respect that bar. And that means when a cop crosses the bar set by a court, the public must have the right to refuse to comply. If you have a situation in which every encounter with a cop requires a re-set and you must comply and then seek restitution in court, then you effectively have no civil rights at all. It only works if the court-determined standard can be enforce _on the street_ if the cops try to cross the line. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/369 "2014-12-08T01:59:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The Freedom Riders were not the sum total of the civil rights movement. There was some violence, and it’s not clear to me that some of the violence might not have played a complementary role in the success of the movement. > > Garner is dead. He was murdered. There was no chance for him to pursue anything in court. Fine, I offer the same challenge, what major rights movements moved forward in recent history in the west due to citizens violently confronting police who attempt to arrest them outside of a war? His estate can pursue action, and I hope his estate does. this is far from ideal but to say there is no recourse is invalid. Following public opinion and pursuing extrajudicial punishment on just Justin Damico will not solve the solution either. And this is what you were asking the Grand Jury to do in this case. It will just placate the mobs at the expense of others who will lose their lives without the benefit of the social/news media attention that Eric received. But how about NOT writing straw-men arguments with every single post. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/370 "2014-12-08T02:00:57Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > If you have a situation in which every encounter with a cop requires a re-set and you must comply and then seek restitution in court, then you effectively have no civil rights at all. It only works if the court-determined standard can be enforce _on the street_ if the cops try to cross the line. It’s a shame that people seem to be totally fine with police being granted the power to run roughshod over the Constitution. They expect only the best from public school teachers, going so far as mandating they be re-certified on a regular basis and have pay increases tied to test scores. But they are perfectly fine with people who have no understanding of the law being hired to enforce that law. They are fine with leaving civil rights protection to judges and prosecutors, rather than the people who are actually the most responsible. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/371 "2014-12-08T02:38:08Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Fine, I offer the same challenge, what major rights movements moved forward in recent history in the west due to citizens violently confronting police who attempt to arrest them outside of a war? Is this in response to something I said? > [@](#): > > His estate can pursue action, and I hope his estate does. this is far from ideal but to say there is no recourse is invalid. Garner has been murdered without due process of law through a violent act of abuse of authority. There is no justice for him. That’s over. The only good that can come out of action by the state is that if such action results in forcing a change in the way cops operate and view their exercise of their power on the streets and if that results in a situation in which citizens do not have to tolerate such abuses of power—that is, the practical right to resist an abuse of power as it happens. > [@](#): > > Following public opinion and pursuing extrajudicial punishment on just Justin Damico will not solve the solution either. And this is what you were asking the Grand Jury to do in this case. This is an oxymoron. An indictment by a grand jury cannot by definition constitute extrajudicial punishment. It is neither extrajudicial nor is it punishment. And so long as anyone can defend this particular grand jury’s action in the Garner case with a straight face, it’s proof that as a practical matter the justice system does not serve justice. Period. > [@](#): > > It will just placate the mobs at the expense of others who will lose their lives without the benefit of the social/news media attention that Eric received. I’m not sure what this is referring to. > [@](#): > > But how about NOT writing straw-men arguments with every single post. Nor this. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/372 "2014-12-08T03:42:35Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Is this in response to something I said? > > Garner has been murdered without due process of law through a violent act of abuse of > authority. There is no justice for him. That’s over. Sure…you seem to think I am arguing the police did the “right and correct” thing. Please quit that, I am trying to answer the question posed by the OP “Why wasn’t the police officer who killed Eric Garner indicted?” > [@Acsenray](#): > > The only good that can come out of action by the state is that if such action results in forcing a change in the way cops operate and view their exercise of their power on the streets and if that results in a situation in which citizens do not have to tolerate such abuses of power—that is, the practical right to resist an abuse of power as it happens. This is starting to happen, the Police in my city of Seattle just had a case dismissed where they said the new DOJ use of force restrictions violated their rights. But this does not change the reality that the law of the land was stacked in Eric Garner’s favor. Part of this is noble, where we prefer to let a criminal go then conflict an honest man but other portions are due to the law and case law not keeping up with the increasingly militarized police who are trained to use force first due to “terrorists” and the drug war. > [@Acsenray](#): > > This is an oxymoron. An indictment by a grand jury cannot by definition constitute extrajudicial punishment. It is neither extrajudicial nor is it punishment. Extrajudicial has multiple meanings, one being “done in contravention of due process of law.” From what we know there was no reason under current law for the GJ to indict. To do so they would have had to been on a witch hunt, in contravention of due process. > [@Acsenray](#): > > And so long as anyone can defend this particular grand jury’s action in the Garner case with a straight face, it’s proof that as a practical matter the justice system does not serve justice. Period. You are not looking for justice you are looking for revenge, they are not related. But on a positive note here is the complaint from the SPD officers that was shot down…note the arguments they pose and the president they are claiming…the fact that at least one federal judge was willing to ignore those arguments is reason to hope for the future. WARNING PDF!!! [https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/suit.pdf](https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/suit.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/373 "2014-12-08T03:59:02Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I say it makes perfect sense to resist an arrest if you have good reason to feel that it is unlawful or that the charges are injust. well good luck with that. > [@monstro](#): > > By resisting, you draw attention to what is happening. By-standers provide a counterbalance to the usual “he said, she said”, and their video footage allows the entire incident to go up for public debate (as we are doing now for Eric Garner, like we did during the Civil Rights movement). you can object to an arrest without resisting it. > [@monstro](#): > > I mean, why should a citizen quietly submit to an arrest based on trumped-up [charges](http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2014/12/man_says_off-duty_bso_cop_arrested_him_for_taking_a_parking_space_files_lawsuit.php)? Sure, there is always the battle waiting in the courtroom…provided you have time and money, and you are sympathetic enough to convince the judge and jury that you were wrongly detained. But the masses most likely won’t be privy to those courtroom deliberations. Your best bet is to be loud and indignant at the initiation of the injustice, so that everyone who is in ear-shot can witness what’s going down and be informed about what their government is doing. Your best bet is to file a complaint or law suit after the dust settles. I’ve run into rogue cops before who did everything in their power to push me into a confrontation. I didn’t take the bait. The worst I got was a bogus ticket that the judge threw out because the cop didn’t show up. The judge was most unhappy about it and I imagine the cop’s personal file got an unwanted letter of rebuke. I knew the ticket was bullshit when I got it because the backup officer’s face was one of annoyance and disbelief. And just as an FYI, the cop in your example couldn’t give a ticket for parking in a private lot. I’ve had more than one threaten me with a ticket for speeding in a parking lot. I knew it was toothless but I tossed in a bunch of “yes sirs” to move the conversation along. > [@monstro](#): > > Being loud and indignant is not the same thing as being violent. yes but resisting is not the same as being loud and indignant. Garner would be alive today if he submitted to arrest. He repeatedly broke the law. It would have been a quick trip “downtown” and he would be out. You and I may think it’s a stupid law but our opinions on the matter have no legal basis. It’s illegal to sell cigarettes without the taxes that go with them. Garner was doing this repeatedly. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/374 "2014-12-08T04:38:10Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > You are not looking for justice you are looking for revenge, they are not related. Wanting a trial is not wanting revenge. I don’t want anyone to be denied due process of law. It’s clear to anyone with eyes that there is enough evidence to at least try the cop for some kind of illegal killing. However, there’s another issue here. Is there any kind of video evidence you could watch and say “No, the grand jury got it wrong; there is no way justice is served by not trying X for what we see him doing in the video.” Furthermore, is there any kind of video evidence you could watch and say “No, the trial jury got it wrong; there is no way justice is served by acquitting X for what we see him doing in the video.” Because, on the face of it, it seems to be your position that it’s not possible for a grand jury (or perhaps even a trial jury) to ever be wrong. And by that definition there’s never an unjust outcome that people would be justified in raising a stink over. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/375 "2014-12-08T04:53:51Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > To simplify it as just a race issue makes the two issues seem less ugly than they are. > > 1. Institutional racism in the ENTIRE justice system is rampant and out of control. > 2. Police have escalated the level of force and violence that they use to levels that should strike fear in every citizen. > > #2 applies no matter if they are a member of a privileged group (like me) or if they are way way over represented in the court and prison system due to #1. I agree. But there’s another element that makes #1 even worse, and that’s institutional class discrimination which also pervades the entire system, especially the trial courts. Most victims of racism in the justice system are also victims of class discrimination, such as the inability to get anywhere near the same level of defense as the wealthy or being subject to discriminatory penalties (e.g.- compare penalties for drug dealing vs. penalties for corporate malfeasance, even if such malfeasance causes harm to public health and life). And though #2 applies to everyone, the discriminated classes are a lot more likely to see it. Were that not the case, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/376 "2014-12-08T06:31:54Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The person who ‘resisted arrest’ gets prosecuted … or not. > > An illegal arrest is an assault by definition. It is an illegal act, usually involving either physical detention or the threat of physical detention of another, that puts another in justified fear. > > What it isn’t, necessarily, is battery (though putting the cuffs on would be). > > If the arrest is illegal, it is no different than if I came up to you and threatened you with dire consequences if you did not come with me - or, if I put handcuffs on you against your will. > > Can’t you see how that would be potentially tortious or criminal behaviour? Why on earth should someone get legal protection against the other person exercising otherwise-legitimate self-defence against that? 😕 > > I don’t know how to put it more clearly. Having a statute define acts of self-protection against illegal assaults by a defined class of persons as “prohibited” is, of course, a “legal protection” for that class. > > I never said (and my position does not require) that every single case of resisting arrest result in a prosecution; it is enough that it could. You’re wrong. An illegal arrest is any arrest not supported by probable cause. A police officer who mistakenly but genuinely believes he has probable cause does not commit a crime with his arrest, even though the arrest lacks probable cause. An illegal arrest is not an assault “by definition.” Assault has a scienter requirement which does not necessarily exist with an illegal arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/377 "2014-12-08T07:16:43Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I agree. But there’s another element that makes #1 even worse, and that’s institutional class discrimination which also pervades the entire system, especially the trial courts. Most victims of racism in the justice system are also victims of class discrimination, **such as the inability to get anywhere near the same level of defense as the wealthy** or being subject to discriminatory penalties (e.g.- compare penalties for drug dealing vs. penalties for corporate malfeasance, even if such malfeasance causes harm to public health and life). And though #2 applies to everyone, the discriminated classes are a lot more likely to see it. Were that not the case, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. (my bold) You’ll have to define your terms. How does not being able to get the same level of defense as the wealthy equal to class discrimination? Am I being discriminated against because I can’t afford a McLaren F1 or a week long vacation in Bora Bora? So, cite - for that claim, as well as the claim that most victims of racism are also victims of class discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/378 "2014-12-08T07:19:28Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Garner is dead. He was murdered. There is no justice for him. That’s over. I agree there is no justice open to Garner since he is dead. He was not murdered in the legal sense - or how normal people use that word. His death was not unlawful. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/379 "2014-12-08T12:44:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I agree there is no justice open to Garner since he is dead. He was not murdered in the legal sense - or how normal people use that word. His death was not unlawful. “Not convicted of murder” and “not a murderer” are not necessarily the same thing. Al Capone was never convicted of murder. Do you say that his victims weren’t murdered? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/380 "2014-12-08T13:24:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re wrong. > > An illegal arrest is any arrest not supported by probable cause. > > A police officer who mistakenly but genuinely believes he has probable cause does not commit a crime with his arrest, even though the arrest lacks probable cause. > > An illegal arrest is not an assault “by definition.” Assault has a scienter requirement which does not necessarily exist with an illegal arrest. I disagree. The scienter requirement applies to the intentional acts, not to the knowledge of the legality of the arrest or the reasonable fear or lack thereof the arrestee is in. If this was the case then the only thing Zimmerman would have to show (or put better, the state would have to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt) that he subjectively thought his shooting of Martin was legal. Or in the assault context, I could swing at you with a baseball bat so long as I mistakenly thought it was legal. The scienter requirement only applies to the gunshot and the swinging of the bat, respectively. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=20)