# 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:** 28
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/541 "2014-12-10T19:25:30Z")
Well, now, you’re talking about a career criminal, a thug and a gangster, selling a deadly product on the street and savagely, brutally resisting arrest! He’s dead, the system works! ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/542 "2014-12-10T19:27:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I believe Eric Garner is a career criminal based on his multiple arrests for violating various laws. Your definition says nothing about arrests, so this belief doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the definition. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/543 "2014-12-10T19:37:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Repeat felony offenders are sometimes called “habitual offenders,” and there are often state laws defining a habitual offender, but “career criminal,” is not a term of art in criminal law. > > His adult arrest record is public, but not Internet-searchable for free. Just for the sake of argument, or to kill time, assume that a prosecutor, in court, before a judge, while the jury was present, referred to a defendant as a “career criminal”. Would the defense have a legitimate/legal (not sure what would be the correct term?) objection to the prosecutor’s use of the term? Also assume (in your spare time) that the defendant was facing a charge where the penalty increased with the number of times the defendant had been previously found guilty. (1st offense = 90 day, 2nd conviction for the same offense = 180 days, 3rd conviction for the same offense = life.) ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/544 "2014-12-10T19:38:56Z")
When a criminal becomes a career criminal does (s)he lose amateur status for purposes of Olympic eligibility? Need answer fast. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/545 "2014-12-10T20:09:49Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > When a criminal becomes a career criminal does (s)he lose amateur status for purposes of Olympic eligibility? > > Need answer fast. I believe they are banned from competing but are automatically qualified as officials. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/546 "2014-12-10T20:24:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Your definition says nothing about arrests, so this belief doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the definition. I can’t seem to find anything covering this situation in the “internet book of allowable terms”. I can’t even find such a book. Maybe you could write one? In the mean time, I believe Eric Garner deserves to be referred to as a career criminal. You, of course, should feel free to refer to him as anything you wish. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/547 "2014-12-10T20:28:37Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I can’t seem to find anything covering this situation in the “internet book of allowable terms”. I can’t even find such a book. Maybe you could write one? In the mean time, I believe Eric Garner deserves to be referred to as a career criminal. You, of course, should feel free to refer to him as anything you wish. You’ve shifted from trying to factually assert that Garner is a “career criminal” as if this was obvious to all to saying it’s just your opinion while offering zero evidence in support. As a hint – arrests wouldn’t tell us anything about whether someone is a career criminal, or even a criminal of any kind… because an arrest doesn’t mean someone did anything wrong necessarily. Probable cause doesn’t equal guilty. So fine, you think he’s a career criminal because he’s been arrested a bunch. I don’t see how those go together at all, but feel free to link unrelated facts in order to demean a dead man. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/548 "2014-12-10T20:43:23Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Just for the sake of argument, or to kill time, assume that a prosecutor, in court, before a judge, while the jury was present, referred to a defendant as a “career criminal”. Would the defense have a legitimate/legal (not sure what would be the correct term?) objection to the prosecutor’s use of the term? An absolutely legitimate objection. Language like that has no place at trial, and an objection to its use would certainly be sustained. Even if the accused had dozens of prior convictions, prior bad acts are generally inadmissible at a trial. (Details and nuances available on request). In this case, of course, we seem to be talking about arrests and not convictions, which even further enervates the already sparse rationale. > [@](#): > > Also assume (in your spare time) that the defendant was facing a charge where the penalty increased with the number of times the defendant had been previously found guilty. (1st offense = 90 day, 2nd conviction for the same offense = 180 days, 3rd conviction for the same offense = life.) Typically in such cases, the jury is first asked to find the facts proving guilt for the current offense, and then, only if they do, are they given evidence about prior convictions. And when such evidence is given, it’s always “Mr. Green was convicted in August 2004 of larceny in the second degree,” and never “Mr. Green is a career criminal.” ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/549 "2014-12-10T20:53:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’ve shifted from trying to factually assert that Garner is a “career criminal” as if this was obvious to all to saying it’s just your opinion while offering zero evidence in support. As a hint – arrests wouldn’t tell us anything about whether someone is a career criminal, or even a criminal of any kind… because an arrest doesn’t mean someone did anything wrong necessarily. Probable cause doesn’t equal guilty. > > So fine, you think he’s a career criminal because he’s been arrested a bunch. I don’t see how those go together at all, but feel free to link unrelated facts in order to demean a dead man. It’s a shame that Garner died. I don’t believe Garner had to die that day but Garner could have made better choices. Garner has been arrested some 32 times. Garner’s actual arrest record hasn’t been made public (but I understand it’s available for a cost). Garner has made some bad choices in his life. Garner made an especially bad choice when he ignored his medical history and chose to resist arrest. Garner’s arrest record makes him a habitual offender. Garner’s decision to resist arrest makes him stupid and now he’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/550 "2014-12-10T21:03:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > An absolutely legitimate objection. Language like that has no place at trial, and an objection to its use would certainly be sustained. > > Even if the accused had dozens of prior convictions, prior bad acts are generally inadmissible at a trial. (Details and nuances available on request). > > In this case, of course, we seem to be talking about arrests and not convictions, which even further enervates the already sparse rationale. > > Typically in such cases, the jury is first asked to find the facts proving guilt for the current offense, and then, only if they do, are they given evidence about prior convictions. > > And when such evidence is given, it’s always “Mr. Green was convicted in August 2004 of larceny in the second degree,” and never “Mr. Green is a career criminal.” Thanks for the info. The term is not permissible in court. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/551 "2014-12-10T21:13:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > It’s a shame that Garner died. I don’t believe Garner had to die that day but Garner could have made better choices. Could the police officers involved have made better choices, too? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/552 "2014-12-10T21:49:59Z")
Better for themselves, sure. I suspect that Garner would have died even if they had not used the choke. Then, perhaps, the cries for indictment might have been marginally more subdued. Perhaps. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/553 "2014-12-10T21:53:57Z")
According to the ME, the chokehold contributed to his death. In addition, he might have lived had they not cuffed him face down while putting weight on his back. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/554 "2014-12-11T01:06:17Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Could the police officers involved have made better choices, too? You first - Did Garner make the best choice? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/555 "2014-12-11T01:17:53Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You collectively condemned “black America”… e.g. all black people in America. Yes, and I explained why. > [@](#): > > Many protesters are in fact advocating for this. I don’t want them saying that x specific officer needs to go to jail. That is dangerous to the entire justice system and democracy itself. It’s the abject mob rule that the founders and even the ancient Greeks feared. > [@](#): > > Then why did you collectively condemn “black America”? I didn’t leave it vague as to why I did, it was explained in detail. > [@](#): > > When someone “puts themselves out there” as representatives of a community, that means it’s okay to collectively hold the community responsible for what that someone says or does? Really? Is it okay to bash Republicans (i.e. “Stupid Republican idea of the day” threads) because of a vocal minority of Republicans that say stupid, objectionable shit? I actually think it is, and I’m a Republican. We need to own the Axis of Stupidity that dominates the public perception of our party, and I accept that. There is no loud voice for my restrained brand of Republican politics and because of that we are (properly) heavily portrayed as being all Tea Party types. That’s reality. To answer, yes, if a community allows itself to be portrayed in an entirely stupid way in the media they deserve communal condemnation. I mean no one has a problem with bashing “white America” or even American in general for its ills, myself included. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/556 "2014-12-11T01:19:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The protesters (or many of them) believe that the current situation is a “legal situation that deprives blacks of liberty” or prevents blacks from exercising the same rights as whites. That’s like people that are against gay marriage saying they’re against it because it deprives them of the right to be free from living in a society that allows gay marriage. When these people advocate for systemic changes, great, more power to them. I have no real care about that. But when their talk is dominated by calls for _specific prosecutions_ then they’re subverting the entire criminal justice system and acting with the same mentality as a lynch mob. This thread is actually about a specific cop, and why _he must be sent to prison because of BLACK FREEDOM!!! zomg._ > [@](#): > > If, in fact, some significant amount of cops and/or parts of the justice system in general treat black people differently because they’re black, then I think they might be correct. No. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/557 "2014-12-11T01:20:55Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To my mind, it doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong - a breakdown of relations between the police and any community of the public those police are supposed to be serving and protecting is a failure of policing policy. > > As is acknowledged in other areas, the appearance or perception of bias is just as damaging as actual bias. > > This harms everyone, as a breakdown in relations makes policing less effective - and tends to have a self-reinforcing effect (if the community perceives the police as ‘the enemy’ they will be less likely to cooperate - and if the police receive less cooperation from a community, they will be more likely to exhibit bias). > > This is why the Toronto police, facing similar problems, elected to pursue the strategy outlined upthread. The key perception is that this isn’t an issue of laying blame for racism, but of eliminating a perception of bias - to stop the cycle of ‘us versus them’ mentality. > > Granted, the challenges are much greater in the US than in Canada. Agreed, but you would probably not go on to say that “this means one thing we must do to rectify it is prosecute cops whom prosecutors know they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt committed a crime”, or to say that “regardless of all that bullshit legalese, these cops need to be in prison.” ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/558 "2014-12-11T01:23:29Z")
> [@treis](#): > > No, refs do not do that. They only stop the fight if the fighter taps or is choked unconscious. The difference between an effective choke and an ineffective one is small, and somewhat difficult to determine visually. Here’s a couple examples of fighters being choked unconscious: MMA refs stop a fight when one side cannot defend themselves, which is a judgment call but will often be relatively shortly into a choke. Blood chokes often do not require more than few moments to render someone unconscious, Judo guys can put someone under in less than 4 seconds (I’ve seen people choked in mid air during a throw land unconscious from the choke, but that’s utilizing part of the uniform itself and not a naked choke.) > [@](#): > > They didn’t die because MMA fighters typically aren’t morbidly obese with asthma. Garner didn’t die from being choked out to death, he was put in physical distress by that (i.e. heavy breathing, elevated heart rate etc) and then was finished by positional asphyxia. Unless you crush the trachea or something it’s all but impossible to kill anyone with a 7-8 second blood choke (the maximum duration the officer’s choke could have been applied.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/559 "2014-12-11T01:24:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > IIRC, it was reported early on that Garner had died of a heart attack, in the ambulance, and that there was an indication of hemorrhaging in the area of his neck. That’s why I would like to see the coroner’s report instead of having the results filtered thru AP, CNN, or two law professors with a personal agenda. > > There have been no reports that Garner died from strangulation or choking on red herrings. The best I’ve seen is the officer’s lawyer said that the autopsy showed no structural damage to the neck area. ---
**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 11, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/560 "2014-12-11T02:09:17Z")
Below forensic scientist Lawrence Koblinsky is commenting on the findings of the autopsy report. He and other experts have mentioned that the petechiae present was specifically caused by the choke hold. > [@](#): > > LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: Well, the report clearly presents evidence that there was a compression of the blood vessels on the side of the neck. This was not a blockage of the airway. The jugular veins are towards the surface of the person. In the neck. The carotid and the arteries are more internal. > > When you compress the neck and you put pressure and close down blood flow in the veins. The arteries are still open. And so blood enters the brain but cannot leave it. And what that means is that blood pressure builds up in the head and in critical membranes, the lining, this fine tissue under the eyelids and the tissue that covers – > > BURNETT: I think they noted that in there, correct? > > KOBILINSKY: They noted that. > > BURNETT: Yes. KOBILINSKY: The tissue that covers the whites of the eye. Tissue in > > the gums. It shows these small pinpoint hemorrhages called petechiae. This is the hallmark for asphyxia due to a compression of those blood vessels. That’s not the only thing, as you pointed out, there was a compression of the chest and there was positional asphyxia. This was a big man. His body mass index was more than twice the high level of normal. And so he was a big man. > > BURNETT: Right. > > KOBILINSKY: He was on his stomach. His chest was compressed. He couldn’t breathe. He could say I can’t breathe, but he had trouble breathing. > > BURNETT: OK. So again it gets to the point of what was the precipitating factor which appears to be in this case had the chokehold not happened this whole chain of events wouldn’t have happened. Then they, though – they go ahead and say the contributing factors, they mentioned asthma, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. > > OK. All those things may be the case. But again, my question to you is do you think the grand jury looked at those and said OK, well, maybe it was those, too. Because the problem is, again, those things wouldn’t have mattered in this instance, had there not been that chokehold. > > KOBILINSKY: I think in this particular instance, all of those factors you just mentioned played a role. > > BURNETT: Yes. > > KOBILINSKY: However, the compression of the blood vessels, either that or the compression of the chest could kill a person, could kill a normal person, person that is not very large. And so this is not a good way for police to subdue somebody. Right from the outset there should have been a different way of handling the situation. > > Certainly when they heard I cannot breathe, they should have backed off. They should have done first air and immediately called EMS. Especially because of his obvious condition. What they didn’t know is he had a cardiomegaly, enlarged heart, he had hypertension, he had atherosclerosis, he had asthma. > > BURNETT: All of which you could have assumed with someone is so significantly overweight. > > KOBILINSKY: That’s correct. If you’re going to deal with a big guy, use special methods. > > BURNETT: All right. Thank you very much, Dr. Kobilinsky. [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1412/05/ebo.02.html](http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1412/05/ebo.02.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=29)