# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Cubsfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Cubsfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cubsfan)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/121 "2014-12-04T19:23:57Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I really don’t get this attitude. The people of Ferguson protested because they have good reason to believe the police unfairly killed one of their own…AGAIN. They don’t have good reason. A group of peers from within their own community looked at all of the evidence, an admittedly EXCESSIVE amount of evidence, and decided that there was no case and did not indict the officer. These were not privileged white people flown in from Bel Aire and the Hamptons. These were people from the community in which this happened. Why do you and others have such a hard time accepting this fact? ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/122 "2014-12-04T19:25:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct, but incomplete. > > You’re right to point out that the police cannot, by administrative fiat, create a crime by regulation. > > But it’s certainly possible – not QED, as Steve MB tried, but simply possible – that an officer violating an administrative regulation is acting with unreasonable force, and thus transforms his privileged use of force into an assault. Up here in Canada, my impression is that the analysis would go as follows: The issue of whether excessive force was used would depend on an analysis of all the facts in context. Similar to an allegation of negligence, the issue would be whether the police had used force in accordance with appropriate standards of professionalism; if not, and if harm occurred thereby, there would be a strong inference that the force was “excessive”. The fact that the police used a hold prohibited by police policy would be very persuasive evidence that the officer in question had failed to abide by accepted standards of professionalism. If a causal link was then drawn between the use of force and harm, there would then be a very strong inference that the force used was excessive. ---
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/123 "2014-12-04T19:26:43Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > There’s no bar on bringing a case before a grand jury a second time; sufficient public outrage could induce such a thing. If at first you don’t succeed, drag the man’s name through the dirt over and over again until you get the verdict you want, eh? ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/124 "2014-12-04T19:31:12Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I am not discussing the reactions of the good folks of Ferguson. I am talking about the reactions of _the rest of us_ - what made this case a national, indeed international, issue, raising concerns about such things as race and appropriate policing generally. The reactions of the “good folks” of Ferguson is the only reason why non-Ferguson residents are even aware of this issue. Their passion have rubbed off on others. This is how protests work. > [@](#): > > Local stuff is for locals. This reaction to this case has gone beyond the local - or do you deny it? Of course not. I just don’t see what that matters. > [@](#): > > For this purpose, one of the other two cases would have been better as a cause célèbre. Without Ferguson being in the news, we very well might not even be talking about Garner right now, so making this all be about _cause célèbre_ betrays shallow thinking. Ferguson has put police brutality on the national news, making it a subject of analysis in way it hasn’t been in decades. Rather than seeing Garner as an isolated incident, more people see it as fitting a larger pattern of police abuse. A pattern that has become intolerable. Again, this is the kind of thing protests aim to do. > [@](#): > > I am, however, glad to see your reactions - if my arguments are attacked irrationally from the left as well as the right in the very same thread, I must be doing something right. 😃 Dude, just stop. ---
**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, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/125 "2014-12-04T19:32:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The law does not preclude a chokehold. The fact that police regulation does cannot alone create a crime. Obviously, police regulation alone does not make the chokehold a crime. The fact that it is generally illegal to assault people (including putting a chokehold one somebody) makes it a crime, unless some specific exception makes a particular instance of putting a chokehold on someone not a crime. In the case before us, the suggested exception (police privilege to use force) does not apply, since the police were specifically instructed not to do that by the police department. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/126 "2014-12-04T19:33:04Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > There’s no bar on bringing a case before a grand jury a second time; sufficient public outrage could induce such a thing. Yes, there is such a bar in New York: CPL § 210.20(4). A court must authorize it on showing of good cause. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/127 "2014-12-04T19:34:12Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > There’s no bar on bringing a case before a grand jury a second time; sufficient public outrage could induce such a thing. What about a 3rd and 4th time, etc.? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/128 "2014-12-04T19:36:13Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Obviously, police regulation alone does not make the chokehold a crime. The fact that it is generally illegal to assault people (including putting a chokehold one somebody) makes it a crime, unless some specific exception makes a particular instance of putting a chokehold on someone not a crime. > > In the case before us, the suggested exception (police privilege to use force) does not apply, since the police were specifically instructed not to do that by the police department. Cite that it does not apply? Any citation to a single case that says that the privilege automatically doesn’t apply when the police regulation forbids it? Because I have never heard of that rule. I’m curious to learn where you found it. ---
**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, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/129 "2014-12-04T19:38:11Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > 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 | The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/eric-garner-grand-jury-didnt-see) I’m unsure why people seemingly have problems parsing the word ‘or’. Your statement about right wing CTs was what sparked, well, my question about why that needs to be said. In OTHER threads on this subject recently, I’ve seen a lot of people called racists and racism brought up constantly as a counter to someone disagreeing with them. Thus my clever use of the word ‘or’. If you didn’t believe there was a CT and were just making a general comment, certainly some folks on this board have used that in the past, and again I was asking why we all can’t seemingly discuss any of this stuff without name calling, references to weird CTs or automatically thinking people are being disingenuous when the reality is that none of this is cut and dried and there is room for honest people to have a difference of opinion on this stuff without them being crazy, racists or trolls. As for the OP, I think that the cops were in the wrong and used improper force for, what I again think was a pretty minor and silly violation, but I think the reality is that they weren’t indited because the court didn’t think they could get a conviction…just like in the other infamous case being talked about on this board lately. Doesn’t mean what the cops did was right or justified, and I think the fact that they are calling for a serious look at procedures and training indicates they know this (or some of them do), but you can’t always get a conviction and if you can’t there is no sense wasting the resources just to appease public outrage, even if that outrage was or is justified (I honestly think it is, in this case…I know I’m pretty outraged by this one, unlike my more ambiguous feelings wrt the Ferguson case). ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/130 "2014-12-04T19:39:13Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > In the case before us, the suggested exception (police privilege to use force) does not apply, since the police were specifically instructed not to do that by the police department. And if, in fact, the officer’s hold was a blood choke and not a traditional choke, as the union asserts, then your assertion is moot because blood chokes aren’t prohibited. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/131 "2014-12-04T19:41:04Z")
> [@bienville](#): > > When someone says that a person can’t say “I can’t breathe” if they can’t breathe, let it go. That part is factually correct. No, when someone says, “I can’t breathe,” you let _him_ go. I saw the video and it didn’t look like Garner was assaulting the cops. It looked he was raising his hands defensively to push the officers’ hands away, but it didn’t merit being choked down to the ground. I thought the force used was excessive and contributed directly to his death. The officer won’t face criminal charges, but I hope the US DOJ does find for civil rights violations against him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/132 "2014-12-04T19:44:04Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > And if, in fact, the officer’s hold was a blood choke and not a traditional choke, as the union asserts, then your assertion is moot because blood chokes aren’t prohibited. His assertion is rubbish, yes. But the shoe also fits on the other foot: even if police department regulations do not forbid the use of a “blood choke,” that does not transform it into a per se legal use of force. Right? ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/133 "2014-12-04T19:44:19Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > it didn’t look like Garner was assaulting the cops. It looked he was raising his hands defensively to push the officers’ hands away You contradict yourself. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/134 "2014-12-04T19:45:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the shoe also fits on the other foot: even if police department regulations do not forbid the use of a “blood choke,” that does not transform it into a per se legal use of force. > > Right? Conceded. It would appear, however, that the grand jury either felt it was a lawful use of force, or that insufficient evidence existed to prove that it was criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/135 "2014-12-04T19:49:33Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Conceded. It would appear, however, that the grand jury either felt it was a lawful use of force, or that insufficient evidence existed to prove that it was criminal. Yes. To my eye, the facts support probable cause, but obviously the grand jury either saw it differently or believed that even though PC existed, there was no way of getting a conviction. Or they nullified. ---
**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 4, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/136 "2014-12-04T19:50:39Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Actually doing something wrong would be a start. Every one of these cases of “cops going too far” this year has turned out to be a completely legitimate exercise of power against lawbreakers, that people are objecting to on visceral, non-logical grounds. Bullshit. Notwithstanding this one and others that you disagree on, you admitted that the Groubert shooting (gas station in South Carolina) was due to misconduct. ---
**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 4, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/137 "2014-12-04T19:50:55Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If at first you don’t succeed, drag the man’s name through the dirt over and over again until you get the verdict you want, eh? I’d settle for _a_ verdict, that is a trial verdict. We sorely need an independent agency for cases involving the police, I have very little confidence in the criminal justice system’s performence when policemen are accused of crimes, and I’m far from alone. There’s still the issue of the public’s reluctance to indict or convict policemen, but it’d be a great start. That said, I don’t expect you to agree, given that you are somehow able to watch the Garner video and conclude that nothing criminal occured. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, there is such a bar in New York: CPL § 210.20(4). A court must authorize it on showing of good cause. Thank you for the correction. > [@](#): > > Upon dismissing an indictment or a count thereof upon any of the grounds specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (i) of subdivision one, or, upon dismissing a superior court information or a count thereof upon any of the grounds specified in paragraphs (a) or (i) of subdivision one, the court may, upon application of the people, in its discretion authorize the people to submit the charge or charges to the same or another grand jury. An excellent time to use that discretion. > [@Velocity](#): > > What about a 3rd and 4th time, etc.? How about once more, with a special prosecutor from outside the Staten Island area? Reasonable? ---
**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 4, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/138 "2014-12-04T19:51:52Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Firstly, they didn’t use “deadly force” against him Yes they did – he died. That’s deadly force. There’s nothing deadlier than killing someone. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/139 "2014-12-04T19:55:08Z")
Hate to double-post, but I missed the edit window. > [@doorhinge](#): > > Both CNN and FOX have shown videos of Garner’s wife, speaking at some recent press conference, saying that her husband told the police eleven times that he couldn’t breathe. Eleven times? That sounds like Garner could breathe. > > It’s reported that the coroner’s report mentions hemorrhaging in or around Garner’s neck. That hemorrhaging could have contributed to Garner’s death. The hemorrhaging resulting for a prohibited choke hold. Does it matter if Garner died from asphyxiation or bleeding from his arteries? He still died because the cop used excessive force for a misdemeanor crime. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271/140 "2014-12-04T19:56:10Z")
> [@XT](#): > > > [@Peremensoe](#): > > > > Racism isn’t actually a “conspiracy theory.” > > Nor did I say it was. Sheesh. No? > [@wolfpup](#): > > Part of what is going on is the notorious difficulty of indicting, let alone convicting, a police officer in the US under any circumstances. But Amy Davidson, writing for the New Yorker, today suggests that a further complication is **the tendency to undervalue the lives of blacks, and the companion problem of a tendency to over-weight the intentions of whites**. It’s hard to shake the notion that there’s a great deal of truth to this. > [@XT](#): > > Why do these threads always come down to name calling or weird CT type stuff? What, exactly, were you describing as “weird CT type stuff,” if not the plainly racist tendencies described? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wasnt-the-police-officer-who-killed-eric-garner-indicted/706271.md?page=8)