# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/81 "2014-12-04T17:58:51Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Racism isn’t actually a “conspiracy theory.” Nor did I say it was. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/82 "2014-12-04T17:59:47Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The American Red Cross. Who taught you that disagrees with them? How many of [the first aid steps listed here](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000007.htm) do you think the police did? Note that it doesn’t say “If the person can say any words that means you can just relax and watch him die” ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/83 "2014-12-04T18:00:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The American Red Cross from this reality. There’s a kernel of truth to what he has said - if a person can speak that means they are getting air. As such, you shouldn’t perform rescue breathing for them - you’re going to be fighting them and they have the best chance of clearing an obstacle themselves. However, that doesn’t mean you don’t perform first aid. All it means is that you don’t perform rescue breathing. You can perform first aid in many ways, such as removing external restrictions to breathing, getting them in a more comfortable position, calming them down, and removing obstacles that can hurt them while flailing about. When someone says “I can’t breathe” it’s not to be taken literally, but it’s a HUGE red flag that something is wrong and needs to be dealt with immediately. If they stop breathing you start rescue breathing assuming you can establish an airway. But first aid goes well beyond that. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/84 "2014-12-04T18:03:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Have you ever taken a first aid class? They’ll teach you not to perform first aid on someone who tells you they can’t breathe, because if they say they can’t breathe, they can breathe. I assume that in your first aid class, you were discussing mouth to mouth resuscitation. It is correct that you do not resuscitate someone who is breathing. > [@Smapti](#): > > The American Red Cross. Who taught you that disagrees with them? Dyspnea is a symptom of several disorders or diseases, many of them very serious. You seem to be suggesting that someone who says “I cannot breathe” is not in any medical distress. This is fundamentally incorrect, so the answer would be that every single doctor in the world disagrees with you. (Despite what you apparently misunderstood in a first aid class one time.) ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/85 "2014-12-04T18:03:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > It’s easy to stand behind hypotheticals that have an almost zero chance of happening, isn’t it? Right, because black cops never kill unarmed white men. [Oh, wait,](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/gil-collar-grand-jury-trevis-austin_n_2812514.html) [it’s happened several times this year alone,](http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/default/article/UPDATE-Former-Orange-police-chief-testifies-in-1346972.php) and they weren’t indicted either. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/86 "2014-12-04T18:07:06Z")
Just out of curiosity, Smapti, can you cite any instance in the history of the world in which you believe a cop committed manslaughter or murder? ---
**Author:** ![DJ\_Motorbike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90ced4/32.png) [@DJ\_Motorbike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DJ_Motorbike)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/87 "2014-12-04T18:07:55Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Cheating the state out of money is the highest of crimes? > > Keep off-topic, off-thread bullshit out of GD. At least save it for a thread where it might be vaguely relevant. My point, in answer to the OP, is that Garner’s death is a result of the authoritarian state established by the left. I think his death is an outrage, not because he’s black, but by most accounts I’ve heard he was minding his own business. However, he wasn’t paying homage to the state in the form of taxes. That’s where the police come in. Stupid laws got enforced. ---
**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 4, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/88 "2014-12-04T18:08:30Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I believe his point is that what you say may all be true, but it would have been preferable for purposes of getting the message out if a different case was chosen for the _cause célèbre_. > > In particular, both the Garner and Rice cases were far more clear-cut - it is hard for anyone to reasonably argue they were justified, based on the evidence so far. The problem with waiting for the “perfect” case before protesting is that by the time that once-in-a-lifetime perfect case occurs, too much damage has been inflicted. The justice system will be totally corrupted with bias. The victimized public will be too demoralized to fight back politically. And the non-victimized public will be too wedded to the idea that the status quo is perfect to even care. This “they picked the one wrong to complain about” attitude is something that only a privileged person would say. It assumes that we’re talking about a couple incidents, not a persistent barrage of abusive episodes that mostly go unreported. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/89 "2014-12-04T18:09:02Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > There’s a kernel of truth to what he has said - if a person can speak that means they are getting air. As such, you shouldn’t perform rescue breathing for them - you’re going to be fighting them and they have the best chance of clearing an obstacle themselves. > > However, that doesn’t mean you don’t perform first aid. All it means is that you don’t perform rescue breathing. You can perform first aid in many ways, such as removing external restrictions to breathing, getting them in a more comfortable position, calming them down, and removing obstacles that can hurt them while flailing about. When someone says “I can’t breathe” it’s not to be taken literally, but it’s a HUGE red flag that something is wrong and needs to be dealt with immediately. > > If they stop breathing you start rescue breathing assuming you can establish an airway. But first aid goes well beyond that. _This_ is what I was taught. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/90 "2014-12-04T18:17:42Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The problem with waiting for the “perfect” case before protesting is that by the time that once-in-a-lifetime perfect case occurs, too much damage has been inflicted. The justice system will be totally corrupted with bias. The victimized public will be too demoralized to fight back politically. And the non-victimized public will be too wedded to the idea that the status quo is perfect to even care. > > This “they picked the one wrong to complain about” attitude is something that only a privileged person would say. It assumes that we’re talking about a couple incidents, not a persistent barrage of abusive episodes that mostly go unreported. Huh? Your paragraph is internally inconsistent. If there is a “a persistent barrage of abusive episodes”, which appears to be the case, there is no need to " waiting for the “perfect” case" or to insist that it is a “once-in-a-lifetime” event - just choose an appropriate one out of the “barrage”. Indeed, in this short period of time, there have been at least two other prominent cases, _either_ of which would have been better, and each of which were not only “reported” but created considerable public awareness! It doesn’t take a “privileged person” to realize this - just someone “privileged” enough to read the news (at that we both qualify as equally “privileged”). The better point is that there is no real concious effort at “choosing” which case attracts attention - and that I will grant. However, if one could do so, one would out of preference choose either of these two other cases, were it possible. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/91 "2014-12-04T18:18:07Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Just out of curiosity, Smapti, can you cite any instance in the history of the world in which you believe a cop committed manslaughter or murder? [Sherriff Lawrence A. Rainey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_A._Rainey) and his accomplices were murderers. Outside our own borders, [Felipe Velasquez](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Iguala_mass_kidnapping) and his underlings are definitely murderers as well. I’m sure there are others but they don’t come to mind at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/92 "2014-12-04T18:26:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Is this in fact true - that _any_ move made by a police officer is, in fact, a legal “arrest” and no actual formalities are required? Not what I said. > [@](#): > > Looking at the laws of New York State, I’m not so sure this is the case: > [Article 140 Criminal Procedure Law | Arrest Without Warrant](http://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article140.htm) From your cite - > [@](#): > > The arresting police officer must inform such person of his > authority and purpose and of the reason for such arrest **unless he > encounters physical resistance**, flight or other factors rendering such > procedure impractical. _:shrugs:_ Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/93 "2014-12-04T18:28:45Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > [Sherriff Lawrence A. Rainey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_A._Rainey) and his accomplices were murderers. > > Outside our own borders, [Felipe Velasquez](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Iguala_mass_kidnapping) and his underlings are definitely murderers as well. > > I’m sure there are others but they don’t come to mind at the moment. Thanks. I’m glad that you can recognize that it is possible for cops to murder and my opinion of you is higher for it. ---
**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 4, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/94 "2014-12-04T18:30:31Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Why do these threads always come down to name calling or weird CT type stuff? Can’t people just have an honest difference of opinion without resorting to calling anyone who disagrees with you names like ‘racist’, calling them disingenuous because they look at it differently or saying there are weird left/right wing CTs that are behind it all? 😕 That’s so unrelated to the quote from me that you posted that I don’t know where you’re getting it from. Are you responding to someone else? Neither I nor Davidson called anyone a “racist” or any other names, and Davidson is a respected and award-winning writer and editor at the New Yorker whose observations and perspective are certainly worthy of at least some cursory attention. And I don’t seriously allege any “conspiracy theory”; I’m merely bemused by the predictability of some of the positions taken in defense of police actions despite all the evidence to the contrary. 🙂 ETA: Forgot to add – this is the Davidson article: > **[What the Eric Garner Grand Jury Didn’t See](https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/eric-garner-grand-jury-didnt-see)** > > A central issue in cases like this is a failure to fully value black lives. That alone can be deadly. But we should also ask about a related problem. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/95 "2014-12-04T18:33:42Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The man was overweight and asthmatic, and those factors contributed to his death from a hold that wouldn’t have killed a healthier man. Irrelevant. > [@](#): > > [Eggshell Skull Rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull) > > The eggshell skull rule (or thin skull rule or you take your victim as you find him rule of the common law) is a well established legal doctrine used in some tort law systems,[1] with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. It increases the liability of a person who may commit a tort against another, from results arising out of those tortious acts. > > This rule _holds one liable for all consequences_ resulting from his or her tortious (usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to another person, _even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition)_. The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person’s head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, _the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury_. (emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/96 "2014-12-04T18:36:54Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Irrelevant. No, your objection is irrelevant, since the grand jury has already made its decision. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/97 "2014-12-04T18:40:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To my eye though, it looks like they simply attack him. The most he did to provoke that was say something like “take your hands off me”. > > The cops in the video never say 'you are under arrest. Please put your hands behind your back" or something like that. One moment they are sort of poking at him, the next they have him by the throat - it is little wonder he was “fighting” when, as we now know, they were literally _choking the life out of him_. Indeed. The behavior of the police in the video is such that a rational and prudent person would quite reasonably conclude that he was being attacked a gang of common criminals disguised in police uniforms (a tactic occasionally used in home invasions), perhaps because he had infringed on that gang’s illegal-cigarette-selling turf. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/98 "2014-12-04T18:46:30Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Right, because black cops never kill unarmed white men. > > [Oh, wait,](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/gil-collar-grand-jury-trevis-austin_n_2812514.html) [it’s happened several times this year alone,](http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/default/article/UPDATE-Former-Orange-police-chief-testifies-in-1346972.php) and they weren’t indicted either. What do either of these cases have to do with a, how you put it “…gaggle of black officers responsible for the death of a white man resisting arrest”? The first involves a single police officer on campus that is confronted by a naked student on drugs that pounded on the police station window then rushed towards him. The second involves a single off-duty police officer involved in the shooting of an unarmed person in an auto parts store parking lot, who was subsequently indefinitely suspended from the force and is currently under investigation. Although neither one comes close to being “gaggle of black officers responsible for the death of a white man resisting arrest”, do you stand behind these black officers the same way you stand behind the white officers that killed Garner and Rice? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/99 "2014-12-04T18:49:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not what I said. Your request in your own words: > [@](#): > > Unless you have a cite saying that one may resist a legal arrest until the arresting officers announce that you are under arrest verbally. (You don’t.) The cite specifically states that it is a legal requirement to announce the reasons for an arrest ‘verbally’. Failure to do so means the arrest is not legal, thus a person resisting the purported “arrest” is not - and cannot be - guilty of “resisting arrest”. Until these cops told this man of the purported reason for his arrest (which they may well have done), he could - quite legally - walk away, and if they attack him - defend himself. Now, it would not be _wise_ to do so - but then, neither is it _wise_ to talk back to Hell’s Angels bikers. Point being that unless the cops are operating within the law, they have no more rights to use force on someone than anyone else. > [@](#): > > From your cite - > _:shrugs:_ > > Regards, > Shodan Yes, encountering physical resistance oblivates the need to announce the reason for arrest - if such resistance (or, indeed, other factors) makes announcing the reason for arrest “impractical”. Are you contending that the acts of this person, as viewed on the tape, made the cops telling him the reason for his arrest “impractical”? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/100 "2014-12-04T18:53:37Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is true that the same provision allows the police to omit this step if the encounter “physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical”. This does not appear to be the case. There was no such “resistance” until _after the arrest was undertaken_. Friendly amendment/correction: There was no such “resistance” _at any time_ – clearly, the officer was never in a position where it would have been at all difficult to identify himself as a police officer and state the reason for arrest. In any case, given that the deceased was so obese and asthmatic as to (in the opinion of those ignorant of the Eggshell Skull Rule) mitigate police responsibility, this procedure could have been easily accomplished before the late Mr. Garner could have waddled far enough away to elude the police. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=6)